calibration

Ulrich · Post by **Ulrich** » Sun Feb 17, 2002 4:42 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
Well, bruises are ineveitable; if that's one of the things you mentioned in your original post I apologize, I must have glossed over it, only seeing the more horrific injuries you mentioned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

agree'd bruises are ineveitable; and a bruise was the first on my list of effects, as it was the least of them. apology accepted.

As for how to do it, as I said, I often fight in just a lightly-quilted aketon and gamboissed cuisses (ask around, it's true!) with exactly the kinds of people we've been discussing (I was Duke Ronabld's squire!). *I* don't get hurt, so SCAdians wearing realistic amounts of protection shouldn't, either.

understood. at your expected level even in a lightly-quilted aketon and gamboissed cuisses you expect to get a good bruise when struck by the force level you infer. correct?
-please define "realistic ammounts of protection"
remember not everyone wants to depict a 15th century knight in plate, some of us want to do a turn of the 12-13th century and still others want to be saxon/viking/sub-romano brits (still easily in our actual scope)
as for who we fight with/were (or in my case are) squired to...I am squired to Sir Conal MacDale. I have the honor/luxury of having 5 knights in my shire, 1 of which is an earl and another a duke. I would easily say none of them hit light, and none of them excessive. though all have the ability to crank it up to a higher level. (it makes for great stories, and wonderful training.)

Of course, someone who's 4'2" and 95 lbs. who's never done anything seriously rigorous in their entire life might want better protection, but isn't that the way of the world?

I also agree some people have higher pain thresholds than others and armor preferences differ from person to person...and I agree with the concept of if it hurts, add armor don't whine...so long as the shot was of a reasonable force.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Remember that the SCAs armor standard is the assumed level of protection for judging blows, it's not what they recommend you actually wear, especially if you're delicate enough to need better protection!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok confused again on this point, if its our assumed level of protection, wouldnt it be ideal for wearing to judge what should and should not be a good blow? (the #2 reason I have/fight in such a kit. #1 being its period for me.)

I assure you I'm anything but delicate, lets just say I go 5'11" 230 right now.(heavier than my more athletic day's but the weights going back down not up) and have years of athletic experience.

the main points i need response to from this post are:

1)what classifies as "realistic amounts of protection"

2) how we do we achieve it? I understand what you say the effect should be now...a bruise. and I agree with it.

you obviously believe it can be done..but if a bruise is the level of damage ones body should sustain, (through the SCA assumed armor) and still swing at the force
levels you imply, I need to know how.
because at this time...from what I understand _my_ receive level is what you say it should be...a bruise through assumed armor. yet you imply that -other kingdoms- dont play at a high enough level...I'm from Meridies, arguably the lightest hitting kingdom in the known world...so by your logic I (based on where I'm from...and I am by far, not the lightest hitting nor the hardest hitting person here) Should be hitting/taking harder...yet I meet your bruise requirement. see the confusion?

Ulrich
(not to final post yet...still gathering info. for a better understanding.)

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Sun Feb 17, 2002 6:15 pm

I will say this,in my opinion,dulled steel swords are not all that damageing to the armour.It will scratch the armour,but not dent it as bad as rattan. Steel swords,if not to heavy, hit with much less force than the rattan clubs we use now.If your using a "crowbar" maybe so. But real swords were not that heavy.Murdoch hit me several times with a del tin two handed steel sword (which was very heavy!),and rattan.he said he was using the same force level with both.The steel sword did not hit harder, in fact i think it hit lighter.....Otto

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Sun Feb 17, 2002 6:37 pm

I just did a little experiment. I hit myself using consistant force on a bluejean covered leg with a rattan sword blade length 30" diam 1 3/4x1 1/4" also a hand and a half del tin 38 1/2" with 1 3/4" width,also a antique french copy of a single hand sword 35" long 1" wide. The del tin hit the same as the rattan. The french copy hit much lighter than the previous two. I'm going to go nurse my bruises now LOL....Otto

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Sun Feb 17, 2002 6:44 pm

And Hugh, it does seem like the concentration of force from the thin edge should be worse than the larger area of force from the semi rounded rattan.However I couldnt tell any difference.I suspect you might get narrower longer bruises from the steel as opposed to large circular bruises. otto

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sun Feb 17, 2002 7:04 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Otto von Teich:
And Hugh, it does seem like the concentration of force from the thin edge should be worse than the larger area of force from the semi rounded rattan.However I couldnt tell any difference.I suspect you might get narrower longer bruises from the steel as opposed to large circular bruises. otto<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Against armor I think you're probably right... as far as "felt force" goes; i.e., what you actually feel. But rattan gives like steel can't, and a truly forceful blow with a steel sword will have a much greater effect, believe me. I've tried it with my sword. Ouch. Oh, and let us not forget the SCAs standard is mail!

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sun Feb 17, 2002 7:06 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ulrich:

the main points i need response to from this post are:

1)what classifies as "realistic amounts of protection"

2) how we do we achieve it? I understand what you say the effect should be now...a bruise. and I agree with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very simple: *You* decide what is realistic for you to wear, and you achieve it by wearing what you need to feel safe.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Sun Feb 17, 2002 7:16 pm

I was hitting an unarmoured leg with the tests, but I also wasnt using as much force as usual. I do agree with more force it might do more damage.I dont think you will get bruised through plate though.I've always fought in solid plate and have never been bruised at all except when the blow hit an unarmoued spot, IE inside of leg or rump,or gap between spaulders and breastplate..Otto

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 12:28 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Otto von Teich:
I was hitting an unarmoured leg with the tests, but I also wasnt using as much force as usual. I do agree with more force it might do more damage.I dont think you will get bruised through plate though.I've always fought in solid plate and have never been bruised at all except when the blow hit an unarmoued spot, IE inside of leg or rump,or gap between spaulders and breastplate..Otto<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's put it this way: If I'm standing in front of you, and I'm about to swing a full-power, finals-of-crown-tourney snap at your arm (which protected by mail), would you rather I did it with a stick of (relatively) wide, flexible material or a hard, unyielding piece of metal with a very thin edge?

Tapping your leg doesn't tell you anything; you aren't using enough force to cause real damage. But anyone who thinks rattan is as dangerous as steel just hasn't thought this through.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Ulrich · Post by **Ulrich** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 1:20 am

Syr Rhys,
Then by your responses that we judge for ourselves what adiquate protection is, and the force level being used should bruise (with rattan) through the SCA assumed armor.

I say then, that. I have solved this conundrum of SCA wide calibration...we'll take Calontir and Meridian Calibration and combine them together and viola bruise through chain w/gambison for receiving and throwing power should be directly perportional. because thats the calibration level you just described to me. through the answers you gave. That being the case how do you justify the power levels you preach? because as *I* understand the power level you speak of, then there is a distinct danger of bruised/cracked/broken ribs if you struck an average person wearing the SCA assumed armor. yet you by your own admission say that a shot that does that is too much and is not what we should be doing.

Ulrich
( just a curiosity are you one of the folks that subscribe to the concept that a single handed sword shot cannot be excessive?)

Jareth · Post by **Jareth** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 4:02 am

SyrRhys,

I will admit that I am not currently an active fighter in the SCA or any other organization. Since my body type is of such dramatic difference from the 'average' fighter, there are no 'loaner' suits about to accomidate me in practice, and I'm waiting until my new harness is completed before resuming my practices. So, please recognize that my 'authority' in discussing SCA fighting is tenuous at best. But I do have an opinion, and I figure that I might as well share it.

One thing in your argument causes me more then a little concern. You've used the fact that you are able to fight in a lightly-quilted aketon and gamboissed cuisses without significant injury as evidence that other SCAdians wearing realistic protection should not get hurt when using what you consider to be 'realistic force'.

I recently took a twenty foot fall without receiving more then a minor scratch. But then, while I am currently out of shape...I do have 14 years of training as a gymnast and acrobat. I would hardly state that my own experiences would indicate that untethered free-climbing is 'not dangerous' just because *I* wasn't injured.

I would respectfully suggest that you consider that your own ability to fight in light armour should not be used as representative of the experiences of other SCAdians.

I've taken a lot from the SCA, though I'm not currently an active member. I've studied more history, practiced more crafts and happily shared my knowledge and enthusiasm with others, as a result of this organization. But through it all, one of the things that I've enjoyed most was the challenge of SCA combat. But, quite honestly...If I *ever* feel that there is a significant danger of becoming so badly injured that I won't be able to work on monday morning, that will be the day I pack up my bags and go home. And while I'm certain that you are correct in your estimation that *you* can fight in a lightly-quilted aketon and gamboissed cuisses with increased levels of force without risk of significant injury...I am not as certain that I could match that level of confidence, even in Italian gothic.

I have a fair amount of money to throw into this hobby with the intent to protect myself. But even so, the level of force you describe intimidates me. While I have a great deal of respect for your goals and prowess, I also want to state that I don't want to play the same game that you seem to want to play.

I have no objections at all to you forming your own organizations within the SCA or holding private tourneys with your own rules. If, eventually, I feel more confident in my own skills, I would be honored if I might attend. But I would respectfully ask that you consider how your suggestions might affect the rank and file, the hobbyists and beginners, before you attempt to sway the general populace to your viewpoint.

Otto von Teich · Post by **Otto von Teich** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 9:32 am

I see your point there.The more force used,the more damage the edge would cause.However,I was hitting myself with enough force that it hurt! Not hard enough to bruise, but hard enough to sting pretty good.The rattan stung,the heavy del tin stung,the light weight( slightly lighter than the rattan) steel sword didnt sting as much as the other two weapons, actually didnt really "sting". So I guess I'd rather have you hit me with the lightest weight weapon you have,be it steel or rattan!If the rattan weighed the same as the steel, I guess I'd rather get hit with the stick!....Otto

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 11:09 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ulrich:
Then by your responses that we judge for ourselves what adiquate protection is, and the force level being used should bruise (with rattan) through the SCA assumed armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's not what I said at all. I said you should wear the armor that gives you enough protection that you don't get anything more than a bruise when fighting with people who use a reasonable level (i.e., not excessive) of calibration. That level of protection is going to vary for each of us. If you get more than bruises, you need to get more protective armor.

The SCAs "assumed armor" is not what we're supposed to be wearing, it's the way to judge the amount of force we should take. the standard says that we should take a blow that would cause damage through mail over an aketon (they say gambeson, but that's because when they wrote the standard they didn't understand the difference) or an iron helm with a real sword.

Damage. That is, hurt you for real. We don't want that to happen.

I say then, that. I have solved this conundrum of SCA wide calibration...we'll take Calontir and Meridian Calibration and combine them together and viola bruise through chain w/gambison for receiving and throwing power should be directly perportional. because thats the calibration level you just described to me. through the answers you gave. That being the case how do you justify the power levels you preach? because as *I* understand the power level you speak of, then there is a distinct danger of bruised/cracked/broken ribs if you struck an average person wearing the SCA assumed armor. yet you by your own admission say that a shot that does that is too much and is not what we should be doing.

:::sigh::: I don't think of myself as an inarticulate man, but I just don't know how to write it any more plainly. Sorry. If you're not going to read what I wrote maybe I should just shut up; that would certainly make a lot of people happy, I'm sure. But you're *still* misunderstanding what I wrote. I think that the amount of force I see in Meridieas wouldn't do a *thing* to anyone in our assumed armor standard using steel swords. Therefore, the calibration in those places is too light.

And there's no real danger of the injuries you describe; people out here fight a lot harder than the norm in Meridies every day, and in just as little armor, and we have no higher incidence of injuries. We're using *rattan*; rattan doesn't cause the same level of damage as a steel sword does. Because of that, we can hit as hard with rattan as we should with steel and not hurt anyone. See?

( just a curiosity are you one of the folks that subscribe to the concept that a single handed sword shot cannot be excessive?)

No, I'm not. I'm not proud of this, but I've knocked people out who were wearing properly-made and padded helms, and I once made a person bleed through a steel breastplate. Those blows were *excessive*; *way* excessive, and I'm teribly ashamed of them, but they certainly prove you can throw blows of excessive force with a one-handed sword (oh, and I use a sword most people consider too light to throw good blows with; force is a function of tehcnique!).

Actually, that makes me think of something: I threw those blows (well, not all of the knock-outs, but some) from the hanging guard; a guard that some of the top fighters out west believe can't be used to throw a legal blow; some won't even take a blow from that guard. It's funny how myths grow up.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 11:18 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jareth:

One thing in your argument causes me more then a little concern. You've used the fact that you are able to fight in a lightly-quilted aketon and gamboissed cuisses without significant injury as evidence that other SCAdians wearing realistic protection should not get hurt when using what you consider to be 'realistic force'.

I recently took a twenty foot fall without receiving more then a minor scratch. But then, while I am currently out of shape...I do have 14 years of training as a gymnast and acrobat. I would hardly state that my own experiences would indicate that untethered free-climbing is 'not dangerous' just because *I* wasn't injured.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My argument wasn't that people should wear such a light harness (I don't most of the time myself; I usually wear more plate because it's more reasonable for my persona); my point was that it was possible to do so because our fighting just isn't as dangerous as people make it out to be.

When you have a few more thousands of hours of helmet time (if you fight at a high calibration level) I think you'll come to understand that, too.

I would respectfully suggest that you consider that your own ability to fight in light armour should not be used as representative of the experiences of other SCAdians.

Taking a hit isn't the same thing as falling successfully; yes, a good knight learns to move *into* blows to cause their force to be decreased (part of the reason many novices think a knight ignored their "might blows"), but you still get hit, especially when you play in the very deep end. My point wasn't that everyone should wear a minimal harness, it was that it was possible to do so in the place that has one of the highest calibrations in the country without getting real injuries.

If you think you need better armor to fight at a realistic calibration, then you go ahead and do so. But your ideas about what will and won't cause injuries aren't based on actual experience; mine are. Sorry to be so blunt. Don't feel bad; many experienced fighters who fight at a low level of calibration think the same thing because they;ve been taught to think that way. My point has been that experience shows it just isn't true.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Ulrich · Post by **Ulrich** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 11:44 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 
No, that's not what I said at all.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 

actually it is almost exactly what you said...it may not have been what you ment.

my question was how much damage should I receive while wearing the SCA assumed armor standard, if struck by a shot (with rattan) of the force you advocate. I then gave a list of levels of damage basing this shot as a "rib" i.e. one that strikes me in the ribs.
choices were
bruise (which you missed the first time through.)

huge hanging hematoma ( a really nasty bruise that has a collection of blood in it and makes it difficult for one to sleep on that side of your body.
bruised ribs.
cracked ribs.
broken ribs.

you chose a Bruise. Even after several attempts to clarify...when you went to the wear whatever you need to feel safe. as your explination of "realistic protection" if ALL i should receive when fighting in the assumed armor standard is a bruise WHY should I have to armor my self more to protect my self from the force levels you propose?

Ulrich
(pressed for time now will post rest later...I do love a good debate.)

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 2:23 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ulrich:

No, that's not what I said at all.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 

actually it is almost exactly what you said...it may not have been what you ment.

my question was how much damage should I receive while wearing the SCA assumed armor standard, if struck by a shot (with rattan) of the force you advocate. I then gave a list of levels of damage basing this shot as a "rib" i.e. one that strikes me in the ribs.
choices were
bruise (which you missed the first time through.)
huge hanging hematoma ( a really nasty bruise that has a collection of blood in it and makes it difficult for one to sleep on that side of your body.
bruised ribs.
cracked ribs.
broken ribs.

you chose a Bruise. Even after several attempts to clarify...when you went to the wear whatever you need to feel safe. as your explination of "realistic protection" if ALL i should receive when fighting in the assumed armor standard is a bruise WHY should I have to armor my self more to protect my self from the force levels you propose?

Ulrich
(pressed for time now will post rest later...I do love a good debate.)

You still aren't reading what I'm writing: This is the last try I'll make, then you're on your own. I'm really starting to think you're misunderstanding me on purpose because you think it's fun.

The assumed armor standard has *nothing* whatsoever to do with what you're actually wearing. Nothing, get that? The assumed armor standard is about how much force we're supposed to be using. It says that a good blow is one that would cause *real* damage, (not just bruises!) to someone in the assumed armor with a real sword. Get that? Real damage with steel swords.

I said you should wear whatever armor you thought you needed to prevent yourself from getting anything worse than a bruise with rattan being swung as hard as the standard above calls for.

Who cares if rattan can bruise you if you're wearing the assumed armor? What does that have to do with any of this? No one's suggesting you should wear the assumed armor, why do you keep coming back to that?

That's it; if you haven't gotten it this time, you're on your own. I'm finished.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Auto · Post by **Auto** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 2:53 pm

Hiya

As you know I disagree with rhys on his wished level of calibration, but in this case to clarify what i think he is saying. Assumed armour, is not the legal armour standards, but what the sca rules say a theoretical knight would be wearing when hit with a theoretical sword. The armour standards are the minimum armour you can wear to participate, and has no bearing on what the sca rules identify as a takable shot.
This is just to clarify the debate, and in no way insinuates agreement

Auto

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 3:43 pm

Auto: "Assumed armour, is not the legal armour standards, but what the sca rules say a theoretical knight would be wearing when hit with a theoretical sword."

This is one of the most lucid descriptions of our greatest contradiction -- despite the grammatical errors *grin*.

The problem with this "theory" is that it was never proven. It was crafted from whole cloth at a time when the standard was being drafted by people who had no empirical data from which to base their assumptions. This is my greatest difficulty with Rhys' proposal that we move to a more stout blow overall because it is somehow closer to the "standard". The standard was flawed at its inception, and I believe any reference to it is equally flawed. This does not mean I do not support using a "brisk shot" as the basis for a telling blow -- I do. Like Rhys, I believe that a well-executed, stout blow is harder to deliver and requires greater skill to execute and control. Yet I will make no pretense that it has anything to do with an arbitrarily-derived, "medieval" standard. For me, it would be no more than a modern construct, set purely to act as a baseline under which our sport would operate.

With respect,

-cheval-

Auto · Post by **Auto** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 3:50 pm

I agree that the SCA assumed standard is naive at best. My intention was just to clarify, so as to keep the debate on track and not end up with misunderstandings derailing it.

As to grammatical errors, I stated before, I am a lord, not a sribe dammit!!

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 3:53 pm

And now that Rhys has dragged me completely off topic, I wanted to offer the following commentary:

I wanted to make it clear that I am not opposed to counted blows. I believe counted blows can be the single greatest contribution to SCA combat since we started using rattan. In this I am in complete accord with Rhys.

My "dig" at the good knight was only in the underlying justification for its practice. Arguing that ending a fight due to incapacitation was somehow self-determined is unsupportable -- one might as well suggest that, since death equally deprived a fighter from continuing the battle, that was somehow "self-determined", too.

It may be a fine detail, but using self-determination simply has no historical provenence that I know of. I merely suggest that it's continued use over more medieval practices is a recognition that, at least in some aspects, our modern artifices simply better suit our romantic sensibilities.

With respect... -c-

Ulrich · Post by **Ulrich** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 4:03 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
You still aren't reading what I'm writing: This is the last try I'll make, then you're on your own. I'm really starting to think you're misunderstanding me on purpose because you think it's fun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually I believe I've found the source of part of the misunderstanding. it seems you didn't read my original question. (or perhaps didn't understand it.) so I'll try to make it even clearer.

*I WEAR* the modern equivilant of SCA assumed armor standard. with the addition of a cup and kidney belt. so what I want to know, is if struck by a Rattan sword, through said armor (SCA assumed standard, not Kingdom standard but society) what amount of Physical damage WOULD (changed from the original should) I sustain given the force levels you advocate? this time its my turn to say...I cant make this question much simpler.

The assumed armor standard has *nothing* whatsoever to do with what you're actually wearing. Nothing, get that?

actually if you'll read above and in my earlier posts you'll see it has everything to do with the question I asked. Everything, get that?

one of the main reasons (#2 as listed earlier) I put that rig together, was to hopefully be a better judge of the shots I took. the theory being if I fight in the society assumed armor, then I hopefully would get a better idea of what their combat actually felt like. both in being and to a lesser extent the feel of the shots themselves.

The assumed armor standard is about how much force we're supposed to be using. It says that a good blow is one that would cause *real* damage, (not just bruises!) to someone in the assumed armor with a real sword. Get that? Real damage with steel swords.

got it, and you keep saying we can accomplish this without the injuries I mentioned, my question to that point (which is skewed a bit now, if you truely didnt understand my first question] was how do we accomplish that and not cause any of the other injuries I mentioned. to someone who wears the assumed armor (as I and others do) which I was under the apparent misconception that you believed we could do.

I said you should wear whatever armor you thought you needed to prevent yourself from getting anything worse than a bruise with rattan being swung as hard as the standard above calls for.

yes you did, and I asked...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
-please define "realistic ammounts of protection"
remember not everyone wants to depict a 15th century knight in plate, some of us want to do a turn of the 12-13th century and still others want to be saxon/viking/sub-romano brits (still easily in our actual scope)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
to hopefully clarify this I'll add I'm not talking about people who cant afford/don't want to pay the kind of cash or effort for "real" armor, I'm talking about folks who have nice, close to period looking rigs and have put a lot of time or money in it to look period for their persona, yet for some reason its not enough to "only get a bruise" at the force level your advocating I'm not talking about people with low pain thresholds or gamy handed gits either I'm talking about above average and up sticks(fighters) with talent. (here I will restate its a bit of a skewed question if you truely didn't understand my original question)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 
Who cares if rattan can bruise you if you're wearing the assumed armor? What does that have to do with any of this? No one's suggesting you should wear the assumed armor, why do you keep coming back to that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 

because it was the basis of the first question I asked, and you answered.

 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
That's it; if you haven't gotten it this time, you're on your own. I'm finished.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sencerly hope its not, I beleive this is not a problem that can be solved by getting fed up and walking away, but by talking it out and gaining understanding perhaps we can come to an agreement, or at the very least come to a calm agreement to disagree.

Auto said

Assumed armour, is not the legal armour standards, but what the sca rules say a theoretical knight would be wearing when hit with a theoretical sword. The armour standards are the minimum armour you can wear to participate, and has no bearing on what the sca rules identify as a takable shot.

I see what your saying..perhaps this will help...the SCA assumed worn armor chain, gambison, leather arms/legs iron nasal helm. is what I wear, of course made of modern material and SCA legal. its definatly higher than the SCA minimum which is basically helm, gorget, kidney/short-ribs/spine, cup, elbow and knee cops. assumed armor (sca legal) was the basis of my original question.
that help.

Ulrich

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 02-18-2002).]

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 4:15 pm

One final observation (yeah,sure *g*!):

I have fought many of the fighters named as "high game" fighters and, for the most part, have not found any of them outside the bounds of what I have known to be the standard for the past twenty-five years (and if Rhys thinks he can get away with only nominal bruising by fighting me in a light gambeson and gamboised cuisses, it can only be due to his lack of capilaries in the upper epidermal layers *g*).

For all save one. I take exception to the suggestion that Michael's calibration falls even remotely within acceptable standards. Yes, I have fought him and I could fight at that level. But in the same way that I argued calling light is outside the bounds of expectations of the vast population of the fighting community; so, too, is Michael so far outside the high end of acceptability that I feel his calibration proves him a cheat and an embarrassment to his rank and station.

And I do not buy into the argument that his consistency in calibration, both delivery and receipt, is some sort of defense for adopting a personal standard of force deemed excessive by so many. This is no longer simply "high game" -- this is outside the game, is indefensible, and needs to be named as such repeatedly and publicly. The truly sad part is that he is an exceptionally skilled fighter and does not -need- to fight like this. And while I find his example useful in educating new fighters where they don't want to go, I often wish I did not have such a ready bogyman with which to frighten the children *wry grin*... -c-

[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 02-18-2002).]

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 4:47 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cheval:
This is one of the most lucid descriptions of our greatest contradiction -- despite the grammatical errors *grin*.

The problem with this "theory" is that it was never proven. It was crafted from whole cloth at a time when the standard was being drafted by people who had no empirical data from which to base their assumptions. This is my greatest difficulty with Rhys' proposal that we move to a more stout blow overall because it is somehow closer to the "standard". The standard was flawed at its inception, and I believe any reference to it is equally flawed. This does not mean I do not support using a "brisk shot" as the basis for a telling blow -- I do. Like Rhys, I believe that a well-executed, stout blow is harder to deliver and requires greater skill to execute and control. Yet I will make no pretense that it has anything to do with an arbitrarily-derived, "medieval" standard. For me, it would be no more than a modern construct, set purely to act as a baseline under which our sport would operate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but with respect, I might not have been clear about *my* point: My point was that the SCAs armor standard is a good one. A blow should be sufficiently hard that if you were using a steel weapon against an opponent wearing mail and an iron helm, you would cause him real damage (albeit not the one-blow kills the SCA pretends were common; hence my three-blow system).

My claim about this standard, however, is that most of the SCAs not hitting that hard, and that in order to meet that standard we have to hit harder. So the standard's *fine*, it's just the way it's been carried out that's flawed in that most people hit too light to damage someone in real armor if they had a real sword.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 4:52 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cheval:

(and if Rhys thinks he can get away with only nominal bruising by fighting me in a light gambeson and gamboised cuisses, it can only be due to his lack of capilaries in the upper epidermal layers *g*).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, bud, I can and do, and my epidermal sensors work just fine! Of course, I *block* a lot, too...

For all save one. I take exception to the suggestion that Michael's calibration falls even remotely within acceptable standards. Yes, I have fought him and I could fight at that level. But in the same way that I argued calling light is outside the bounds of expectations of the vast population of the fighting community; so, too, is Michael so far outside the high end of acceptability that I feel his calibration proves him a cheat and an embarrassment to his rank and station.

Sorry, but Michael takes as hard as he gives and vice versa; how is this cheating? With respect, I take exception to that.

I'll admit that I can't always hit as hard as Michael does, especially now that I'm so out of practice, and, frankly, Michael was always better than I was, so of *course* he could hit harder

Would you care to offer an argument as to why that level is excessive? I'm not aware of his causing any disprportionate number of injuries.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 4:56 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cheval:
My "dig" at the good knight was only in the underlying justification for its practice. Arguing that ending a fight due to incapacitation was somehow self-determined is unsupportable -- one might as well suggest that, since death equally deprived a fighter from continuing the battle, that was somehow "self-determined", too.

It may be a fine detail, but using self-determination simply has no historical provenence that I know of. I merely suggest that it's continued use over more medieval practices is a recognition that, at least in some aspects, our modern artifices simply better suit our romantic sensibilities.

With respect... -c-[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all respect, Sir, I would argue that dying from a shot *is* self-determination, as is going unconscious, as is yielding because you're hurt to badly to continue, or too exhausted to continue. The three-blow system is designed to *simulate* these things, it was never meant to imply that people actually said, "OK, I've been hit three times, you win". It's designed to simulate the circumstances under which a medieval knight would have won. I *promise* you it has nothing to do with modern sensibilities, or I wouldn't have agreed to it when we first set the sytem in place! I'm the last person anyone should criticize for doing things one way just because the SCA does them that way.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 4:59 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ulrich:
I sencerly hope its not, I beleive this is not a problem that can be solved by getting fed up and walking away, but by talking it out and gaining understanding perhaps we can come to an agreement, or at the very least come to a calm agreement to disagree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm very calm, Ulrich, I just can't seem to summon the words to make you understand what I'm saying. I'm not walking away in a huff, I'm just walking away, defeated by my lack of ability to communicate this very simple concept to you.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 6:05 pm

Hi everybody.

Great stuff so far.

Rhys, if anybody does want you to shut up, I am not one of them. I greatly appreciate your input.

One of the great things about the archive, is that people from many different backgrounds and different areas can share ideas from a wide variety of perspectives. The discussions often get heated, but there is rarely any malice. As you yourself often argue in strong terms, so do others. E-mail and posted replies rarely convey emotion well.

It has been my goal when asking questions in this forum or responding to others posts, to get honest opinions from all those involved.

I actually agree with most of what you write about in terms of fighting and I tend to agree with Cheval as well. The fact that I may disagree on what constitutes a good level of force to use in the SCA in no way means that I do not respect or appreciate your input. I was and am glad that you have chosen to participate, it brings yet another experienced voice to the debate.

As far as Duke Michael goes, I have been fortunate to not be around when his alledged/legendary problems have occurred. When I fought him, he did not expect me to take blows that he would not take. At the same time, I thought his calibration level was excessive. My point to my comments involving Michael and other people playing at that "high game" level, is that the current rules DO allow for that interpretation. At the same time, most of the SCA seems to think, like me, that even if the rule currently allows Michael to play at that level, that the rule should as a result possibly be changed to reflect a common standard that we can all agree upon that would not be quite that high. If they make it that high, I will still play, but I will wear full plate or close to it AND have to practice more than my current schedule and life allow for. I don't think most people are willing to do so.

If Michael played in the East and wanted to play at the same level he fought me at, I would be OK as long as I knew it was coming. But most people would consider him to be rhinoing/cheating/playing a different game than the rest of us generally expect.

Rather than villify anybody, I am simply suggesting on this and on my calibration rule thread, that we all work to define a common accepted standard that can be used throughout the SCA. It is probably coming whether we like it or not, as a result of the standardization committee's work. Rather than attack anybody, I think we should simply work to end up with a standard we all want before the committee gives us something we don't want. Once we have a standard, preferably an easily measurable one, we can worry about who is cheating and who isn't.

I always assume my opponent is honorable until he proves otherwise. Because of the way the current rules are written, Michael is not cheating as long as he does not expect people to take less than he would take, since he believes and with some justification, that his interpretation of the force levels is correct. I am not speaking to the many accusations against Michael that he does other than this, I am neither defending him or attacking him in that respect. When Ronald and others I mentioned before play with me, their level was nothing like Michael's. I did not mean to imply that it was.

Let's not worry right now about who is cheating and who simply interprets the rules wrong. Let us work to come up with a workable rule or at least a common interpretation of the current one. It will do a lot more good in the long run I think.

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 8:00 pm

Rhys,

Dying is self-determination?! LoL!!! A corpse has no choice, Rhys (nor does an unconscience opponent), and without choice, there is nothing to determine. It is your choice to embrace this conceit, but it's a fallacy of argument (straw man) that does not support your premise.

As to attempting to strike to a "real" calibration, I realize we are farther apart than I first suspected. I contend that we cannot fight to a real standard until we really fight. I have the same problem with this approach that I have had with the "armor creep" we have been subjected to over the years -- the ever-increasing requirements for more armor under the guise of "safety" when, almost without exception, there was no history of unsafe events to precipate these decisions (I have always contended that we will never know minimum armor until we start stripping down and reach the point at which injuries -do- occur. Then we will know the minimums and can armor to that *evil grin*).

I do agree that the -idea- of three blows does a better job of simulating the medieval effect of accrued damage than the current system of acted blows. I also agree that, for the most part, a higher overall level of force can be sustained without significantly increasing the number of injuries. I doubt if we will ever know if this is the amount of force necessary to do real damage against an armored opponent, nor do I believe we will ever actually achieve this as an organization. It is interesting that we have two very different objectives -- yours to more closely simulate medieval combat, mine to improve on ways to celebrate the romantic inspiration of the medieval archtype -- yet we can agree on a common set of standards to satisfy both our needs.

And I do stand by my statement that any fighter who exceeds the norm to either degree is taking advantage of his opponents' training and expectations and, as such, is guilty of cheating. It may not be breaking the rule (as Richard is careful to point out), but when the system is predicated on a community tradition like ours, it violates the underlying spirit of honor upon which our system is based.

While we may never achieve consensus on what it is we are doing (sorry, Richard *grin*), there are sufficient examples of when the conduct of an individual is so far outside the bounds of acceptable behavior that everyone can point to him and say, "no". In another post, Rorik alluded to a time when he was put under sanction for using excessive force. I was there when this happened, and while nobody could scientifically demonstrate what "sufficient force" was, everyone seemed to agree that he was "excessive" and needed guidance if he was to be allowed to continue (I actually thought he was fine, but his home kingdom fought to a lighter standard than where I was from). Rorik was able to adapt and went on to becoming a knight and count in this same kingdom, and I'ld wager that few of the fighters from his area even recall this episode. I doubt very much if anyone can say this of Michael.

With respect,

-cheval-

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Tue Feb 19, 2002 1:22 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cheval:
Dying is self-determination?! LoL!!! A corpse has no choice, Rhys (nor does an unconscience opponent), and without choice, there is nothing to determine. It is your choice to embrace this conceit, but it's a fallacy of argument (straw man) that does not support your premise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, it's only a way of *representing* a condition, or of simulating it.

We're not saying that people counted the number of times they were hit, we're saying that the multiple hits are supposed to represent the battering you'd get from a real fight. In that sense the SCAs system is just the same (though the number is unrealistic): when you get hit you're *acknowledging* that fact by saying, "OK, I'm dead". In period you didn't have to acknowledge it, you'd be dead for real (hypothetically: we all know that one-shot kills are highly unlikely except in the case of thrusts), but we don't want people to really die, so we made a way to simulate it.

Could you be more precise about what's bothering you about this? It seems both simple and cut and dried to me: In period you'd get battered until you couldn't continue, and you'd voluntarily yield (or pass out from damage; effectively the same result, except one's a conscious choice). Under our system you get hit three times and pretend you've been battered to the point where you have to yield. From that viewpoint we're handling it *exactly* like it was handled in period, except for the fact that people would have different tolerance levels.

Why is that wrong? Can you suggest a system that more effectively simulates the real thing?

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Tue Feb 19, 2002 4:21 am

Rhys,

I think we are getting closer to the communication "block" we seem to share (don't you just -love- this medium *wry grin*?).

I never said I had a problem with the 3-blow system; in fact, I prefer it -- but for different reasons than you, it would seem. What I was pointing out is that, as long as you are trying to simulate the medieval victory condition of submission with self-determination, the practice will be less accurate a recreation than the alternatives (adjudication, actual submission fighting). I was only trying -- in my dry, subtly humorous way -- to suggest that, since you seemed to prefer a simulation that retained the SCA-construct of self-determination over a more authentic model, you perhaps continued to harbor a secret affection for the romantic element of victory derived from an honor-based system, rather than one chosen purely for its historical accuracy.

Still, my attempt at gentle humor failed, and I apologize for the unfortunate miscommunication. From now on, I will stick to to the fat jokes *smile*.... -c-

William MacCrimmon · Post by **William MacCrimmon** » Tue Feb 19, 2002 9:16 am

Dear Uncle,
Did you read what I said? I don't take issue with it requiring more skill to throw a hard shot. I have a problem with you wanting to play harder than the level we already play at. That gives the knuckleheads of the world (whatever the color of their belts), the opportunity to blow off some really astonishingly hard blows. That is what I have a problem with.
What I'm happy with is that most of the areas in the country I've been to are fairly similar. Hit hard, take a good bit lighter. Only a couple of areas that I've seen tend towards the extremes in either direction of calibration and I've been good enough over the years to be able to adapt to the local calibration when visiting from out of town.
BTW for those who don't know me: hitting hard for me falls somewhere short of concussing my opponent, or sweeping their legs out from under them with a broadsword. Having done both I'm just not interested in hurting my opponents that much & some of them were in 12ga helms.
By all means we should all clean up our technique. Delivering force efficiently to our honorable opponents will follow. I was lifting a massive 75lbs at the time when I first found my focus and started to have to apologize for giving folks standing 8 counts and stars in front of their eyes, and yes those were 12ga helms they were wearing. I would really hate to see us play harder since I firmly believe that we're pretty close to the edge of delivering that kind of force even through good armor.
-William
>>>>>>>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
 Sorry, Bill, but it's true. It takes much more skill to *land* a hard blow than it does a quick light blow; Dan should have taught you that; we certainly taught it to him. You come from our line, and this is pure Ronald philosophy; you should know better.

The harder we hit the more skilful we have to be, both to make the harder blows land and to block them. That's so obvious I can't even believe it needs to be argued.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Tue Feb 19, 2002 9:56 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cheval:
I never said I had a problem with the 3-blow system; in fact, I prefer it -- but for different reasons than you, it would seem. What I was pointing out is that, as long as you are trying to simulate the medieval victory condition of submission with self-determination, the practice will be less accurate a recreation than the alternatives (adjudication, actual submission fighting). I was only trying -- in my dry, subtly humorous way -- to suggest that, since you seemed to prefer a simulation that retained the SCA-construct of self-determination over a more authentic model, you perhaps continued to harbor a secret affection for the romantic element of victory derived from an honor-based system, rather than one chosen purely for its historical accuracy.

Still, my attempt at gentle humor failed, and I apologize for the unfortunate miscommunication. From now on, I will stick to to the fat jokes *smile*.... -c-<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Oh great, more fat jokes... Ah well, I suppose that great men must face the unfair criticism of the little people who just don't understand... (Humor alert! Humor alert!)

I *do* like the honor system; I think it's very cool, but if it was at odds with a good simulation, I'd be one of the first to ditch it.

I *don't* like the adjudication of an outsider because I don't trust anyone to do it. First, our game is so safe you can't judge based on injuries (which is what a medieval judge would have looked for... "and the blood gushed forth"), nor would either of us want that, and you surely can't judge based on calibration: I've been playing this game for a lot of years, and I think I'm as skilled a judge as any, but I can't usually tell if a blow was good. Just last night I was at practice, and there were several instances where I thought a blow wasn't good, yet the person in the helmet felt it was a *crushing* blow (and vice-versa), and this wasn't someone with a sissy calibration level. Moreover, I don't trust a judge not to apply modern notions of chivalry to our bout, for example, by letting someone who drops a weapon re-arm himself, or thinking worse of an opponent who doesn't let him do so.

So, in a way, I think determinant judging, while *externally* similar to the real thing, would actually be *less* authentic in *function*. Sort of like the guys that get heavy SCA plate armor in an attempt to have a more authentic harness: It *looks* more authentic, but the way it functions is so wrong that they're no more authentic in *practice* than is the guy who wears pickle barrel armor.

No, I like the three-blow system because it gives us a chance to at least *try* to simulate a real fight, and, I think, it's the *only* way we can do so. Oh sure, it needs some refinements: For example, I'm thinking of moving to a 4-blow system in order to better simulate two handed weapons against one-handed ones. What I would do is say that a two-handed weapon blow counts as *two* blows, and an even number is better for that. This hasn't been much of an issue up to this point because we seldom use mismatched weapons (it just wasn't done in tournaments), but I think this will allow more flexibility in the system. Of course, it will then mean that bouts with only two-handed weapons will effectively be to two good blows... hmmm... have to think about that.

Nor is the three-blow system perfect: It doesn't simulate melee very well, and changing the number of blows needed for one-handed versus two-handed weapons will make that even more difficult.

Still, to paraphrase Chruchill, "It isn't a good combat system, it's just the best one there is".

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Tue Feb 19, 2002 12:27 pm

Ohboy.

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Tue Feb 19, 2002 12:30 pm

Oddly enough Vitus, I thought you would have more to say than an inscrutable "Ohboy"

hjalmr · Post by **hjalmr** » Tue Feb 19, 2002 12:34 pm

WOW!

From what I can tell -I'm taking blows way to lightly.

I believe I am going to experiment with gauging blows -I will now only accept blows that move my armor/limb, injures me(ouches and owws), hits me with a WHAM, or make me think "wow, what a blow" -basically an undeniable shot!

Does this sound good? Did I leave anything out? Please let me know what you think.

(^_^)

sarnac · Post by **sarnac** » Tue Feb 19, 2002 12:35 pm

As I said in the other thread...

I dont beleive that there is some mystical level that you attain to hit hard.
Any newbie can be trained to deliver a telling blow in short order...

The issue is how hard I have to hit YOU in order to deliver a telling blow...

This is the issue that needs to be addressed.
this is the issue that needs to be standardized.
This is the issue that causes the most problems at InterKingdom events.