The Armour Archive

Balin50 wrote:

Maeryk wrote:

Balin50 wrote:What is a good shot?

One that the giver and taker both agree upon.



Well kinda but in end it is the taker that has final say. All the taker can do is throw harder and hit it again, or lose and bitch about it.

Balin


Edit All the giver can do

...DOh

I was thinking the other direction.

"GOOD!" "No.. tip" "no, flat". "No, there was NO power on that when I threw it" etc etc.

Maeryk wrote:

Balin50 wrote:

Maeryk wrote:

Balin50 wrote:What is a good shot?

One that the giver and taker both agree upon.



Well kinda but in end it is the taker that has final say. All the taker can do is throw harder and hit it again, or lose and bitch about it.

Balin


Edit All the giver can do

...DOh

I was thinking the other direction.

"GOOD!" "No.. tip" "no, flat". "No, there was NO power on that when I threw it" etc etc.

I know that is why i said kinda

Oh and on rules:

I agree with Leo that the chainmail standard is crap, but for different reasons. It's crap not (necessarily) because we don't hit hard enough... but it's crap because it's an impossible standard to calibrate too. And I actually fight in a chain shirt!

Instead of rewriting the armor standard to something "lighter" (or for that matter, heavier), I would prefer the rules just be rewritten to indicate actual practice - that is - people yield when they feel they have been bested.

Similarly, since "excessive force" is not defined in any marshall's handbook, the rule itself is essentially useless... except for a Marshall to point at when he wants to stop something he doesn't like.... although since "directed touch" has been clarified to mean whatever local custom dictates, I suppose we could interpret "excessive" to be the same. I guess I always thought it meant "don't break your toys".

Balin50 wrote:What is a good shot?

You know it's those loud brain numbing smashing blows that you don't take.


Feargus, We can't re write the rules because in order to do so we would have to remove the honor system. The honor system is the beauty of our game. Without the ugly side of that we would have no way to judge and be inspired by the pretty side.

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:Oh and on rules:

I agree with Leo that the chainmail standard is crap, but for different reasons. It's crap not (necessarily) because we don't hit hard enough... but it's crap because it's an impossible standard to calibrate too. And I actually fight in a chain shirt!

Instead of rewriting the armor standard to something "lighter" (or for that matter, heavier), I would prefer the rules just be rewritten to indicate actual practice - that is - people yield when they feel they have been bested.

Similarly, since "excessive force" is not defined in any marshall's handbook, the rule itself is essentially useless... except for a Marshall to point at when he wants to stop something he doesn't like.... although since "directed touch" has been clarified to mean whatever local custom dictates, I suppose we could interpret "excessive" to be the same. I guess I always thought it meant "don't break your toys".

"Excessive" is the safety-loophole. If you are blowing people's grills off their helmets, and creasing 12 gauge helms for no good reason other than you just like to hit people that hard, a marshal has every right to step in and call it and tell you to lighten the hell up.

Now.. if I see Duke Ronald and Duke Gavin go at it? Fine. they can swing for the trees all day long.. nobody in their right mind is gonna step in and say anything.

But J Random Stickjock swinging that hard at EVERYTHING that comes along? And then gets the guy who authorized last week at his small, local fight practice where they all hit and take kinda light anyway (which is a total nother kettle of fish), coming up to that guy IS a safety hazard.

Count Johnathan wrote:

Balin50 wrote:What is a good shot?

You know it's those loud brain numbing smashing blows that you don't take.


Feargus, We can't re write the rules because in order to do so we would have to remove the honor system. The honor system is the beauty of our game. Without the ugly side of that we would have no way to judge and be inspired by the pretty side.

Umm.. I disagree. I think what he's talking about is take out all the ridiculous wording about what is a "kill" and why it would be a "kill" etc, and just go with "This is a modern sport, with modern rules, and here they are". Forget the BS "armor standard" and go with "Whatever you are wearing, you are expected to play at acceptable calibration levels for wherever you are playing". Which means guy from swings-for-trees kingdom who goes to play in the dutchy of wrist-flickers tones down, and vice versa.

Simplifies things, and takes that whole "WELL! THAT WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED ME FOR REAL!" (of course not.. if it would have killed you for real, it would have killed you RIGHT NOW) argument out of the whole mess.

It's not "killed" it's "Good".

Maeryk wrote:Umm.. I disagree. I think what he's talking about is take out all the ridiculous wording about what is a "kill" and why it would be a "kill" etc, and just go with "This is a modern sport, with modern rules, and here they are". Forget the BS "armor standard" and go with "Whatever you are wearing, you are expected to play at acceptable calibration levels for wherever you are playing". Which means guy from swings-for-trees kingdom who goes to play in the dutchy of wrist-flickers tones down, and vice versa.

Simplifies things, and takes that whole "WELL! THAT WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED ME FOR REAL!" (of course not.. if it would have killed you for real, it would have killed you RIGHT NOW) argument out of the whole mess.

It's not "killed" it's "Good".

Well said Maeryk.

-Aaron

Feargus wrote:It cannot be excessive unless the person struck states that it is, any more than it can be good or light unless he states that it is. Yours is not to dictate how he receives his blows, merely to throw them to his liking.

Here's where we disagree. I am responsible for throwing blows to MY liking. He is responsible for either taking or rejecting them. I am in no way bound to exceed what I believe is responsible behavior due to his likings. I am only responsible for my behavior. If that means I "lose" that bout and he "gets away with it", so be it.

Maeryk wrote:"Excessive" is the safety-loophole. If you are blowing people's grills off their helmets, and creasing 12 gauge helms for no good reason other than you just like to hit people that hard, a marshal has every right to step in and call it and tell you to lighten the hell up.

So, in other words it's rule to prevent something (repeated destruction of perfectly good helmets) that doesn't happen.
I suppose I can grant that it's BECAUSE of these rules that it doesn't...

But J Random Stickjock swinging that hard at EVERYTHING that comes along? And then gets the guy who authorized last week at his small, local fight practice where they all hit and take kinda light anyway (which is a total nother kettle of fish), coming up to that guy IS a safety hazard.

I think we can agree that this can be a bad thing. But the "excessive force" rule is not what makes it bad... it's more of a "don't be a dick" rule. In cases like this (which I will grant may occur with some small frequency) usually just talking to the guy will straighten him out... if not... these things have a way of policing themselves.

I think we can agree that this can be a bad thing. But the "excessive force" rule is not what makes it bad... it's more of a "don't be a dick" rule. In cases like this (which I will grant may occur with some small frequency) usually just talking to the guy will straighten him out... if not... these things have a way of policing themselves.

Ummm..

Yeah. And "excessive" is the foot-in-the-door for a marshal to talk to him. "I think you are hitting him too hard" isn't. "You just blew his entire arm harness off.. I think that might be a tad excessive" is.

Which is the point.

I've only ever met one person who actually got BOUNCED from fighting for "excessive" shots, and he was blasting people, full extension, in the face with a 9 foot spear as hard as possible, and hurt a couple people in the process.

They gave him like, a six month time out, ate his card, and told him to come back when he learned to play nice.

Feargus wrote:So, by general consensus, the rules as stated are not followed?

Time for new rules.

Not sure which rule you want to change - but in general - I think that the rules should match what people actually do. (Which is, in my estimation) basically what Maryk outlined - a good shot is good when it's called good.

Another way of putting this is that in the SCA we fight to Submission. But it's not the usually submission of "pain and suffering" like a tap out - it's a submission of shame and honor. "Can I walk away from that shot with my honor intact". When that fails, it goes back to pain.

It seems like a crazy system, but it actually works pretty well.

Maeryk wrote:
Yeah. And "excessive" is the foot-in-the-door for a marshal to talk to him. "I think you are hitting him too hard" isn't. "You just blew his entire arm harness off.. I think that might be a tad excessive" is.

Pretty much what I said, although I was more oblique:

ME wrote:...except for a Marshall to point at when he wants to stop something he doesn't like

But in summary... I guess it's not a terrible rule. "Conduct yourself in a chivalrous manner" (rule 6) is not very well defined either... but I think we should keep that one!

Count Johnathan wrote:We can't re write the rules because in order to do so we would have to remove the honor system. The honor system is the beauty of our game. Without the ugly side of that we would have no way to judge and be inspired by the pretty side.

Wow!

AlexanderLancaster wrote:

Count Johnathan wrote:We can't re write the rules because in order to do so we would have to remove the honor system. The honor system is the beauty of our game. Without the ugly side of that we would have no way to judge and be inspired by the pretty side.

Wow!

This is actually a critical point. If we had, say, electronic impulse sensors on our armor - or even judges - we wouldn't need an honor system. But the fact that we judge blows on an honor system allows us to actually, you know, be honorable.

I might differ with his Excellency's words in that we don't actually need "dishonorable acts" to to show our honor, but we do require the OPTION.

Reflect on this, and on Nissan's words - you only control your own actions. The actions of others reflect on them.

Another way of putting this is that in the SCA we fight to Submission. But it's not the usually submission of "pain and suffering" like a tap out - it's a submission of shame and honor. "Can I walk away from that shot with my honor intact". When that fails, it goes back to pain.

It seems like a crazy system, but it actually works pretty well.

That's a fairly excellent statement.....

So long as we have a system where people insist that "only the person in the armor is allowed to calibrate the blow" and there is no penalty for ignoring shots there will be people who refuse to call shots. As long as it is considered more dishonorable to call someone on blow-calling than to ignore shots, there will be problems.

I also don't agree with the "I'll just hit them harder" philosophy either. If a fighter is so bad that you can hit him at will and he ignores it, then he is no huge threat because everyone sees what is going on. It is the more subtle rhino that is the threat. The one who is a very good fighter and you are hard pressed to get that one good shot in and then when it finally comes in with all you want on it, he ignores it. Everyone misses shots, the most chivalrous fighter in the world can miss a shot. The difference is that if I find out I've missed one and it is still during the tournament I will do my best to change the result. If I find out that his sword is pulped but he was beating me to death then I would hope that I find that out and give him the win he deserved. Finding out after the fact and the tournament is over does not help either my opponent for him losing or for me for the loss of honor.

And friends who cover for someone who doesn't call blows are just as bad as the offender. If they don't want to hurt his feelings or feel it doesn't matter and they just know how to hit him harder or make excuses for him then do they really help? I try to be an honorable fighter and one to make my kingdom proud. I ask for a decent shot and won't call slop. But I also constantly worry that I also call correctly and try to fix problems if anything happens. I would hope this is the attitude of all honorable fighters.

Maeryk wrote:

Count Johnathan wrote:

Balin50 wrote:What is a good shot?

You know it's those loud brain numbing smashing blows that you don't take.


Feargus, We can't re write the rules because in order to do so we would have to remove the honor system. The honor system is the beauty of our game. Without the ugly side of that we would have no way to judge and be inspired by the pretty side.

Umm.. I disagree. I think what he's talking about is take out all the ridiculous wording about what is a "kill" and why it would be a "kill" etc, and just go with "This is a modern sport, with modern rules, and here they are". Forget the BS "armor standard" and go with "Whatever you are wearing, you are expected to play at acceptable calibration levels for wherever you are playing". Which means guy from swings-for-trees kingdom who goes to play in the dutchy of wrist-flickers tones down, and vice versa.

Simplifies things, and takes that whole "WELL! THAT WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED ME FOR REAL!" (of course not.. if it would have killed you for real, it would have killed you RIGHT NOW) argument out of the whole mess.

It's not "killed" it's "Good".

That still doesn't change the fact that it would be up to the receiver to determine if the blow was acceptable or not. The armor standard is there simply to remind us that we are all supposed to be wearing pretty much the same thing as far as calibration is concerned and really because we all learn fighting from one another IMO the rules in the book don't cause confusion or deliberate lack of accepting blows. We all learn to fight based on the local calibration and we already go with whatever you are wearing you should still accept blows at this level. That's how we are all brought into this game so while I agree somewhat that the armor standard suggests that in reality we should expect a harder blow to certain areas of the body or it's no good I feel we already do a fine job of keeping calibration at a steady basic level.

What I was gleaning from his post was more that we should have some sort of rule that prevents rhinoing and to an extent we do. According to the rules a rhino cannot exist. It is up to the receiver to determine if a blow is good or not and if he decides nobody can hit him hard enough then it is his own honor he is damaging. Again this is effective if it's not the victory that is important to us but rather our own personal honor and desire to be seen as fair and chivalrous. That is the beauty that our current rules give us to determine for ourselves.

As far as my thoughts on giving and receiving blows are concerned, I accept blows as good as you say and take the loss. I deliver blows to kill and use sufficient force to make my opponent aware of that.

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:

AlexanderLancaster wrote:

Count Johnathan wrote:We can't re write the rules because in order to do so we would have to remove the honor system. The honor system is the beauty of our game. Without the ugly side of that we would have no way to judge and be inspired by the pretty side.

Wow!

This is actually a critical point. If we had, say, electronic impulse sensors on our armor - or even judges - we wouldn't need an honor system. But the fact that we judge blows on an honor system allows us to actually, you know, be honorable.

I might differ with his Excellency's words in that we don't actually need "dishonorable acts" to to show our honor, but we do require the OPTION.

Reflect on this, and on Nissan's words - you only control your own actions. The actions of others reflect on them.

Well I wasn't really saying that we need "dishonorable acts". I would like to live in utopia as much as anyone but the fact that we have seen the ugly side certainly makes us more aware of when someone is doing it the right way and holds his or her own honor in high regard above simple victory. If we were all the same there would be no heroes and nothing better to aspire to become.

What I was gleaning from his post was more that we should have some sort of rule that prevents rhinoing and to an extent we do. According to the rules a rhino cannot exist. It is up to the receiver to determine if a blow is good or not and if he decides nobody can hit him hard enough then it is his own honor he is damaging. Again this is effective if it's not the victory that is important to us but rather our own personal honor and desire to be seen as fair and chivalrous. That is the beauty that our current rules give us to determine for ourselves.

I agree, right up until there is something on the line for the tournament.

At that point, it's cheating.

Maeryk wrote:

What I was gleaning from his post was more that we should have some sort of rule that prevents rhinoing and to an extent we do. According to the rules a rhino cannot exist. It is up to the receiver to determine if a blow is good or not and if he decides nobody can hit him hard enough then it is his own honor he is damaging. Again this is effective if it's not the victory that is important to us but rather our own personal honor and desire to be seen as fair and chivalrous. That is the beauty that our current rules give us to determine for ourselves.

I agree, right up until there is something on the line for the tournament.

At that point, it's cheating.

Yes I agree but glory from simple victory is short lived. I owe some gratitude to a person who was considered by many to be a "rhino".

I was fighting in a high profile tourney and doing very well. I reached the finals and faced off against this person. I desperately wanted to win. I fought my hardest and I struck the man with blows that others would normally have accepted and in fact I know that he normally would have accepted as good but my blows were ignored. Many blows ignored that made it very evident that he was raising his calibration above my abilities in order to acheive the victory that he and I both wanted. The end result is that he struck me eventually and I accepted the loss. It made others aware that I held my own honor above victory and was unwilling to give that up in order to get the win. The very day that he stepped up to claim his prize I was called up by the King right there in front of my previous opponent and offered my belt. His look of joy at being this great champion became one of jealousy and sadness that he had lost something greater than sitting in a big chair for six months. Yes he did get his six months in the sun but after that he faded into obscurity but I am still and will always be a knight.

Maeryk wrote:

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:Oh and on rules:

I agree with Leo that the chainmail standard is crap, but for different reasons. It's crap not (necessarily) because we don't hit hard enough... but it's crap because it's an impossible standard to calibrate too. And I actually fight in a chain shirt!

Instead of rewriting the armor standard to something "lighter" (or for that matter, heavier), I would prefer the rules just be rewritten to indicate actual practice - that is - people yield when they feel they have been bested.

Similarly, since "excessive force" is not defined in any marshall's handbook, the rule itself is essentially useless... except for a Marshall to point at when he wants to stop something he doesn't like.... although since "directed touch" has been clarified to mean whatever local custom dictates, I suppose we could interpret "excessive" to be the same. I guess I always thought it meant "don't break your toys".

"Excessive" is the safety-loophole. If you are blowing people's grills off their helmets, and creasing 12 gauge helms for no good reason other than you just like to hit people that hard, a marshal has every right to step in and call it and tell you to lighten the hell up.

Now.. if I see Duke Ronald and Duke Gavin go at it? Fine. they can swing for the trees all day long.. nobody in their right mind is gonna step in and say anything.

But J Random Stickjock swinging that hard at EVERYTHING that comes along? And then gets the guy who authorized last week at his small, local fight practice where they all hit and take kinda light anyway (which is a total nother kettle of fish), coming up to that guy IS a safety hazard.

Actually, I would kind of hope that someone (like, say, Darius or Ice) might poke their nose in and just check to make sure we're ok. Not that I don't think everything would be fine and it would just be big boys playing hard, but it doesn't hurt for another one of the big boys to just confirm

Back when Siegfried was coming up the ladder, he and I used to fight quite often. And one week it might be damn near touch kill, while the next it might be thunder to open and earth shaking by the time we were done. But it was always mutual and we had a blast doing it. I know that on more than one occasion we scared people on the sidelines
And there was never any question about acknowledgment - no "rhinoing" involved, just mutual understanding that we could go hard with one another and today we were going to.

Alex Baird wrote:My reply was in the context of turning up the power to "11". If the range is from 1 being totally inadequate, 5-8 being normal power range, and 10 being top end, then 11 is into the excessive range. Now, obviously, the 1-10 scale is a sliding one, depending on individuals and local norms, but "top end" should mean just that.

But, if I need to hit Lord Numbflesh at the equivalent of the local 11, then I know I am exceeding what is acceptable behavior among my peers. It then becomes a question of if I want to break what I consider to be the rules, simply to beat him. I don't think it right to do that for two reasons. First, and foremost, because I think "10" is the upper limit of what should be done. It's at 10 for a reason, and that reason is I don't want broken toys. Real disabling injury isn't something I want to inflict on a sparring partner. Second, because I don't want to cheat for the win. Throwing what I believe to be excessive force is every bit as much against our ruleset as not taking less than excessive is.

I think you are misinterpreting "11". We all have a range that we have trained to throw as "good" and a range we've learned to accept as "good". Hopefully those two match up reasonably well and we're not expecting our opponent to take feather kisses while requiring dented 12 gauge ourselves.

So the top end of each person's "good" range is their "10". I expect that most of us have some margin between the top end of what we normally throw as "good" and what we would consider "excessive". I would thing this especially true for experienced fighters who live in relatively light calibration areas. Their sword may go to 15 without getting to excessive, because their scale is different than their neighbors.

I start with heavy blows, and am willing to scale up somewhat from where I start. I've known people I needed to hit Hard, by my standards. I've had an occasion or two where I was not willing to give someone what they were asking for - because I won't go past a certain level of risk of injury to my opponent.

In other words, I don't consider "11" and "excessive" to be equivalent terms and I believe you are inappropriately equating them in your argument.

Gunthar wrote: The one who is a very good fighter and you are hard pressed to get that one good shot in and then when it finally comes in with all you want on it, he ignores it. Everyone misses shots, the most chivalrous fighter in the world can miss a shot. The difference is that if I find out I've missed one and it is still during the tournament I will do my best to change the result. If I find out that his sword is pulped but he was beating me to death then I would hope that I find that out and give him the win he deserved. Finding out after the fact and the tournament is over does not help either my opponent for him losing or for me for the loss of honor.

I both agree and disagree with the statements above. It is true the higher the skill level the more "important" it is that his calibration be good. But if the bout comes down to a SINGLE shot that someone doesn't take... maybe they are just better than you. Personally, I have a pretty wide band of shot power - I guess my mechanics are a little sloppy and I move around a bit - so I will hit the same person with "the same shot" and sometimes it's good and sometimes it's not.

I absolutely agree that everyone misses a shot now and again - and it's important to make corrections promptly, when they still "matter". However, while I might take a shot that didn't feel right from a pulped sword in _practice_ in a tournament --- it's your JOB to make sure your equipment is up to par. It's mot my job to correct for your lazy habits. (The exception might be if someone literally BROKE their sword during the bout... I would let them replace it and refight)

Count Johnathan wrote:If we were all the same there would be no heroes and nothing better to aspire to become.

It is easy to know light when darkness looms. It may be more difficult to recognize the brighter candle when all around is lit, but it is no less sublime. In my Utopia, we are all heroes aspiring to be better ones ... AoC

Gunthar wrote: It is the more subtle rhino that is the threat. The one who is a very good fighter and you are hard pressed to get that one good shot in and then when it finally comes in with all you want on it, he ignores it.

I fought a Knight one time in a tourney. I would not describe him as a rhino, but I digress.

The King was sitting and watching the whole thing. Apparently I was the villian opponent and the Knight was the good guy that was supposed to take me out as part of the scenerio.

I was having a good day, went through my opponents and advanced to the final fight, The King told the Knight in front of everyone "Sir XYZ, he had better not win this tournament ."

So the final fight started. Sir XYZ took my leg out. I was on my knees and I then got a slot shot into the chest of the Knight.

Time stood still for a few seconds, we both paused, and I watched the Knight's face. His eyes went from left to right as if concerned that someone had actually witnessed that blow. His expression was hillarious.

Anyhow, he didn't take the shot and he proceeded to take me out, which was ok, since I was the bad guy anway.

Gunthar wrote: If I find out that his sword is pulped but he was beating me to death then I would hope that I find that out and give him the win he deserved..

Interesting thought-

Is it not his responsibility to make sure his equipment is up to par?

Is it your fault if his sword is pulped?

Should you have to lower your calibration standards so far as to accept what you wouldn't normally think of as a "good" blow, just because he failed to check his equipment properly?

Does he REALLY deserve a win if he wasn't able to deliver a solid blow because he failed to notice his sword was no longer good?

Would the definition of a rhino change from kingdom to kingdom?

Would the way to deal with a rhino change from kingdom to kingdom?

With respect,

-Aaron

Calibration certainly varies from Kingdom to Kingdom, so I suppose the first statement would be true.

Aaron wrote:Would the definition of a rhino change from kingdom to kingdom?

Would the way to deal with a rhino change from kingdom to kingdom?

With respect,

-Aaron

I don't think so.

Definition: Someone intentionally shrugging shots that are considered "good" by local standards and group conjecture, in order to "win".

The variable there is not whether or not someone is rhinoing, but what is considered "good" locally.

here's an example where someone could be accused of "rhinoing" but it's not true:

Small Shire X has no fight practice, and next to no fighters.. two guys from one household start a practice, and train everyone who wants to fight in the Shire as fighters. Two Guys both hit, and take, fairly lightly, as where they started fighting that was "standard" calibration.

Fight practice grows, and one day, Duke D stops by, to drop in and fight at the practice, cause he's in town for a teaching symposium on the importance of wearing your pants around your waist.

Duke D is from The Land of Dinosaurs, where everyone hits and takes at 12G denting level calibration.

NOBODY at the practice can hit him hard enough. Literally.

So.. is he a rhino?

Everyone "at home" can hit him hard enough, (even though it's difficult to get said shots IN).

One of the issues I am having is that a thrown blow from my end is very hard to measure. I simply cannot tell when and if a particular blow of mine lands with monster, inappropriate force- this is after nearly thirty years of fighting.

Kilkenny wrote:

Alex Baird wrote:My reply was in the context of turning up the power to "11". If the range is from 1 being totally inadequate, 5-8 being normal power range, and 10 being top end, then 11 is into the excessive range. Now, obviously, the 1-10 scale is a sliding one, depending on individuals and local norms, but "top end" should mean just that.

But, if I need to hit Lord Numbflesh at the equivalent of the local 11, then I know I am exceeding what is acceptable behavior among my peers. It then becomes a question of if I want to break what I consider to be the rules, simply to beat him. I don't think it right to do that for two reasons. First, and foremost, because I think "10" is the upper limit of what should be done. It's at 10 for a reason, and that reason is I don't want broken toys. Real disabling injury isn't something I want to inflict on a sparring partner. Second, because I don't want to cheat for the win. Throwing what I believe to be excessive force is every bit as much against our ruleset as not taking less than excessive is.

I think you are misinterpreting "11". We all have a range that we have trained to throw as "good" and a range we've learned to accept as "good". Hopefully those two match up reasonably well and we're not expecting our opponent to take feather kisses while requiring dented 12 gauge ourselves.

So the top end of each person's "good" range is their "10". I expect that most of us have some margin between the top end of what we normally throw as "good" and what we would consider "excessive". I would thing this especially true for experienced fighters who live in relatively light calibration areas. Their sword may go to 15 without getting to excessive, because their scale is different than their neighbors.

I start with heavy blows, and am willing to scale up somewhat from where I start. I've known people I needed to hit Hard, by my standards. I've had an occasion or two where I was not willing to give someone what they were asking for - because I won't go past a certain level of risk of injury to my opponent.

In other words, I don't consider "11" and "excessive" to be equivalent terms and I believe you are inappropriately equating them in your argument.

I was the one that brought up the "11" thing, but I think My point was misunderstood.

Say you are in a bout, and you throw what you think is an "8" using Alex Baird's scale above, and your opponent doesn't take it.

Now, keeping in mind that only the receiver can call the blows, what he is saying at that point is that your blow was actually a "4" or under. (assuming that a "5" is the lightest shot that can be called good).

So, you hit him with a "10"- that should equal one of his "6" shots, and he still doesn't take it.

Again, he is the judge of how heavy the shot was, and he's telling you it is light.

So you give him an "11", and he takes it.

Now, in your version of the scale, that 11 is excessive- but he, by refusing anything less, is telling you that it is "just enough".

I know I'm putting this across poorly, but my point is basically that as long as the receiver is the only one that can judge blows, a shot that just barely gets called good isn't excessive- even if it felt that way when you threw it.

Dauyd wrote:

Does he REALLY deserve a win if he wasn't able to deliver a solid blow because he failed to notice his sword was no longer good?

I think so. Yes, he didn't check his equipment but that happens sometimes. I have fought tournaments where people didn't take my blows and I've been annoyed only to find out later that my sword was pulped. I felt better about it because I knew then my opponent wasn't blowing off shots. But I do feel that if somone is hitting me solidly and I'm not taking it because their sword is pulped and we figure that out either during the fight or immediately afterwards then I would yield the fight. Why? Because he outfought me. If his sword were solid I would have lost the fight. The spectators watching only see me shrugging off thunder and don't know I'm being hit with a marshmallow. And, yes, the opinion of the audience counts to me.

No. He didn't hit me hard enough to actually kill me, like real life dead. Why? Because we have a standard of hitting with sufficent force to penetrate our armor and be felt but not to kill. This is a sport standard we have adopted to demonstrate our skill. If someone fights me with skill enough to hit me solidly, with sufficient penetration and control. He has beaten me. If his stick happens at that moment to be a pool noodle but he has still beaten me to our standards then he deserves the win.

And to change his sword before the next bout.

Dauyd wrote:So you give him an "11", and he takes it.

Now, in your version of the scale, that 11 is excessive- but he, by refusing anything less, is telling you that it is "just enough".

I know I'm putting this across poorly, but my point is basically that as long as the receiver is the only one that can judge blows, a shot that just barely gets called good isn't excessive- even if it felt that way when you threw it.

That's Alex's position and exactly frames my point, which was that "11" is NOT necessarily "excessive".

You've attributed to me a position 180 degrees from what I espoused.

Sigifrith wrote:

But if the bout comes down to a SINGLE shot that someone doesn't take... maybe they are just better than you.

If it this, totally hypothetical instance, were the only time then you are correct that the opponent missed a shot and won the fight. But if the behaviour is consistant in that a fighter misses one or two good shots during important fight then there is a problem.

I guess what I was attempting to demonstrate was that it isn't just the clods that you beat on all day and everyone can see they are cheating who are there. But there are very good fighters who allow themselves to be just a bit better often enough that it is noticed. Any discussion I see about people with um..."differing blow calibration than that of the general fighting populace" ...always seems to be answered with "just hit them harder and don't worry about it. If someone is a good fighter but not calling within the general standards of the fighting population then it is a real problem. The problem with the SCA is that we allow them to succeed without any real penalty.

Aaron wrote:Would the definition of a rhino change from kingdom to kingdom?

Would the way to deal with a rhino change from kingdom to kingdom?

With respect,

-Aaron

Definition of "rhino" shouldn't change, because it really should be, in all cases, "a person who knowingly and intentionally disregards blows that they would acknowledge under different circumstances".

It doesn't encompass the guy who has a standard acknowledgment that he always takes, no matter who he is fighting - but half his opponents cannot hit that hard.

It doesn't encompass the guy who missed a shot because he just missed a shot.

It doesn't encompass the guy from a different area who has trained to a higher acknowledgment than your area.

Rhino (and I'm another who prefers "weeble", because there's nothing tough about being a weeble) is for people who are actually cheating.

Making it very hard to document, I believe actually making it very rare, and keeping it focused on something that actually does deserve to be castigated.

How it's dealt with absolutely will vary from kingdom to kingdom - and that's entirely to be expected and appropriate. We're not a homogenous organization, we've got different styles and traditions, etc.