SyrRhys is right in one respect. All of my injuries were sustained from everything but getting hit too hard -except for perhaps getting hit where I didn't have armor. Which is my fault(even the low blows would be ok if I was smart enough to wear full legs.)
(^_^)
calibration
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hjalmr:
<B>SyrRhys is right in one respect. All of my injuries were sustained from everything but getting hit too hard -except for perhaps getting hit where I didn't have armor. Which is my fault(even the low blows would be ok if I was smart enough to wear full legs.)
(^_^)</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Greaves. Wear them.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>SyrRhys is right in one respect. All of my injuries were sustained from everything but getting hit too hard -except for perhaps getting hit where I didn't have armor. Which is my fault(even the low blows would be ok if I was smart enough to wear full legs.)
(^_^)</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Greaves. Wear them.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
Im not clear on why we *should* hit harder.
Where I fight, the average shots dent 16g steel on a regular basis, and 14/12g helms getting dented is considered fairly run of the mill. While I agree that we can certainly hit harder than we do, and might be able to get away with it without a major increase in injuries, I dont understand why we should. It doesnt seem to me that it would increase the realism of the SCA game as it is played now.
Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge than me could look into what the ancients considered a "telling blow" when they were doin tourneys in the counted blows au'plaisance style. ( does Rene's book cover this?)
I find myself in the most agreement with the hit hard, take light mentality. At the end of the day, I just feel that if someone put a stick on me, then I screwed up.
Where I fight, the average shots dent 16g steel on a regular basis, and 14/12g helms getting dented is considered fairly run of the mill. While I agree that we can certainly hit harder than we do, and might be able to get away with it without a major increase in injuries, I dont understand why we should. It doesnt seem to me that it would increase the realism of the SCA game as it is played now.
Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge than me could look into what the ancients considered a "telling blow" when they were doin tourneys in the counted blows au'plaisance style. ( does Rene's book cover this?)
I find myself in the most agreement with the hit hard, take light mentality. At the end of the day, I just feel that if someone put a stick on me, then I screwed up.
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by markH:
<B>Im not clear on why we *should* hit harder.
Where I fight, the average shots dent 16g steel on a regular basis, and 14/12g helms getting dented is considered fairly run of the mill. While I agree that we can certainly hit harder than we do, and might be able to get away with it without a major increase in injuries, I dont understand why we should. It doesnt seem to me that it would increase the realism of the SCA game as it is played now.
Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge than me could look into what the ancients considered a "telling blow" when they were doin tourneys in the counted blows au'plaisance style. ( does Rene's book cover this?)
I find myself in the most agreement with the hit hard, take light mentality. At the end of the day, I just feel that if someone put a stick on me, then I screwed up.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Try this: Stand in front of a friend's shoulder, and, as quickly as you can, reach out and touch him lightly on the shoulder. Use this as a basline measurement.
Now, try the same thing, but have him attempt to bat your hand away before it lands.
Next, try the same thing, but hit his shoulder as hard as you can, as if you were trying to knock him down or damage him (were you to strike a vital target). Again, he should try to bat your hand away before the blow lands.
What you're going to find is that it's *much* easier for your "target" to bat your hand away when you strike the powerful blow than it is when you make a light, quick blow. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that when you really put your muscles into the blow it moves more slowly, and the fact that you must necessarily telegraph your motion more if you really put everything into it.
This means that the harder you want to strike, the more skilled you must be to make the blow land. Therefore, by *requiring* a higher level of force (but one still short of a dangerous level!), we're also causing our fighting to reach a higher level of skill, which means people get better at blocking, which means we have to get better to land powerful blows, etc., etc. It's one of the reasons SCA fighting is one of the most advanced martial arts actually being *used* (as opposed to people just going throughte motions) in the world.
It's also a good way to show what force is realistically like. We had a couple of kids come to a fighter practice some years ago. They were practitioners of escrima, and proudly showed us their deadly rattan sticks (which were about 3/4" thick, if I remember correctly). They told us that they couldn't swing them full force because they could easily shatter bones, etc., etc.; the usual pablum that martial artists teach their students. So we let them try. It was pathetic. They couldn't even swing them hard enough to hurt (other than stinging, of course). When we showed them the level of force we used they were shocked and apalled... and very, very quiet. Gone were the fierce boasts of their tremndous skill and power.
The bottom line is if you don't do it full speed and full power you're not doing the real thing, and your just playing tag. If that's what you like, hey, go for it. Somewhere else.
As for taking light, why? I know SCAdians have all been taught that's the "chivalrous" thing to say, but it makes no sense. We're supposed to be recreating *armored* combat. The whole *purpose* of armor is to protect you from that kind of thing! If it's too light, it's no good!
As for what the primary sources say, I'll remind you of the descriptions of the fight between Lord Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy, in which those present reported that the blows were so powerful they smashed and ripped armor; I think we have a long way to go before we're there... Or the words of Sigmund Ringeck in his fecthbuch, where he said "...always fence with all your strength...". Enough said.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Im not clear on why we *should* hit harder.
Where I fight, the average shots dent 16g steel on a regular basis, and 14/12g helms getting dented is considered fairly run of the mill. While I agree that we can certainly hit harder than we do, and might be able to get away with it without a major increase in injuries, I dont understand why we should. It doesnt seem to me that it would increase the realism of the SCA game as it is played now.
Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge than me could look into what the ancients considered a "telling blow" when they were doin tourneys in the counted blows au'plaisance style. ( does Rene's book cover this?)
I find myself in the most agreement with the hit hard, take light mentality. At the end of the day, I just feel that if someone put a stick on me, then I screwed up.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Try this: Stand in front of a friend's shoulder, and, as quickly as you can, reach out and touch him lightly on the shoulder. Use this as a basline measurement.
Now, try the same thing, but have him attempt to bat your hand away before it lands.
Next, try the same thing, but hit his shoulder as hard as you can, as if you were trying to knock him down or damage him (were you to strike a vital target). Again, he should try to bat your hand away before the blow lands.
What you're going to find is that it's *much* easier for your "target" to bat your hand away when you strike the powerful blow than it is when you make a light, quick blow. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that when you really put your muscles into the blow it moves more slowly, and the fact that you must necessarily telegraph your motion more if you really put everything into it.
This means that the harder you want to strike, the more skilled you must be to make the blow land. Therefore, by *requiring* a higher level of force (but one still short of a dangerous level!), we're also causing our fighting to reach a higher level of skill, which means people get better at blocking, which means we have to get better to land powerful blows, etc., etc. It's one of the reasons SCA fighting is one of the most advanced martial arts actually being *used* (as opposed to people just going throughte motions) in the world.
It's also a good way to show what force is realistically like. We had a couple of kids come to a fighter practice some years ago. They were practitioners of escrima, and proudly showed us their deadly rattan sticks (which were about 3/4" thick, if I remember correctly). They told us that they couldn't swing them full force because they could easily shatter bones, etc., etc.; the usual pablum that martial artists teach their students. So we let them try. It was pathetic. They couldn't even swing them hard enough to hurt (other than stinging, of course). When we showed them the level of force we used they were shocked and apalled... and very, very quiet. Gone were the fierce boasts of their tremndous skill and power.
The bottom line is if you don't do it full speed and full power you're not doing the real thing, and your just playing tag. If that's what you like, hey, go for it. Somewhere else.
As for taking light, why? I know SCAdians have all been taught that's the "chivalrous" thing to say, but it makes no sense. We're supposed to be recreating *armored* combat. The whole *purpose* of armor is to protect you from that kind of thing! If it's too light, it's no good!
As for what the primary sources say, I'll remind you of the descriptions of the fight between Lord Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy, in which those present reported that the blows were so powerful they smashed and ripped armor; I think we have a long way to go before we're there... Or the words of Sigmund Ringeck in his fecthbuch, where he said "...always fence with all your strength...". Enough said.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Khann:
<B>the usual pablum that martial artists teach their students (quote)
Huh? Please explain? Are you saying the PKA and CKA, hit light?(Brad Heffton does not hit light, Nor does Rick Ruffus) No disrespect meant. I would like to understand what you mean.
(edited 02-14-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm talking about the guys who pace back and forth on the gym floor swinging wasters or bokken or punching the air or kicking the air.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>the usual pablum that martial artists teach their students (quote)
Huh? Please explain? Are you saying the PKA and CKA, hit light?(Brad Heffton does not hit light, Nor does Rick Ruffus) No disrespect meant. I would like to understand what you mean.
(edited 02-14-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm talking about the guys who pace back and forth on the gym floor swinging wasters or bokken or punching the air or kicking the air.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
Sir Rhys' presentation of his views is always, shall we say, direct and strongly voiced.
I too fall into the camp that decries armoured fencing.
While I am not sure I want the game played at the same high force levels that some advocate, I certainly do not want it going too light either.
I think that one can work to establish a consensus as to what a manly stout blow range would be. What I mean by this is simple in concept, yet often difficult in the execution.
For reasons Vitus has elsewhere stated, the current force level specified by corpora, is an extremely high force level in the opinions of those that have studied it in recent times. Yet even this is somewhat hypothetical, as the only way to know for sure would be to recreate the SCA target armour and actually whack at people with real swords in order to determine what force levels would be required to disable, injure or kill them.I would guess that at least half of the SCA would reject fighting at that level of force.
I don't think we need that level of force.
That being said, I want people that I hit to only accept properly landed, stout blows. If they don't wear armour or proper armour, they will tend to accept blows from me that they should not. I wear armour. I want people to hit me with properly landed, stout blows. Then I can yield to them knowing that they have indeed defeated my defenses and earned the victory.
When you require a light to moderate force level, techniques that simply would not work well against a properly armoured opponent, become popular. It distorts the game.
It is bad enough that we have to use rattan that does not behave like a real steel sword, if you start fighting at slower speeds without force, it quickly becomes totally divorced from any semblance of medieval combat.
Think about what you can do in slow work on a pell with your rattan sword or with the popular whiffle ball bat. The idea is to work through a technique at lower speeds and with less force to get the move right, then to increase the speed and force up to combat or tourney levels as you master the mechanics. The idea is not to practice doing unrealistic things you could not do at speed with force. Too many people want to do the unrealistic things they can do with lower speed, lighter weight, lower force blows in order to be competitive against people they could not beat in a more serious, armoured combat format where full speed and higher levels of force are expected.
I am not advocating insane levels of force. I do think we should all put on armour, not T-shirts/plastic and a kidney belt, and we should hit each other like men.
If this means you can't be successful because you are fat, weak, slow due to a lack of conditioning, stop eating too much and hit the gym. Don't expect others to dilute the power and grace inherent in the form simply because you can't keep up. I currently fall into the fat old guy camp. While I can probably still wax most of the newbies and intermediates, a big chunk of the better fighters and chivalry would probably beat me soundly. That is my fault, not theirs. It is my job to either get in shape and use technique and skill to remain competitive or to stay out of the lists (or at least not complain if I do get my butt kicked due to poor conditioning).
As far as people that want it watered down so that frail men, unathletic women and old people can be competitive, I say screw that. People whose physical disadvantages or limitations prevent them from playing a manly game, should retire or accept defeat graciously, not try to change it to fencing.
There are fighters out there with only one leg or one eye or of great age who still compete. They do not ask for sympathy, mercy or quarter. They still seek to fight the good fight. I will not dishonour their efforts by supporting a move to change what we do into LARP Boffer or armoured fencing levels of armour, weaponry and force. There are plenty of groups that do that and if that is what you want, go fight in one of those groups. The SCA is one of the few places we can explore the limits of safely recreated medieval tournaments, even though I agree it is a limited recreation. I don't want that to change.
I too fall into the camp that decries armoured fencing.
While I am not sure I want the game played at the same high force levels that some advocate, I certainly do not want it going too light either.
I think that one can work to establish a consensus as to what a manly stout blow range would be. What I mean by this is simple in concept, yet often difficult in the execution.
For reasons Vitus has elsewhere stated, the current force level specified by corpora, is an extremely high force level in the opinions of those that have studied it in recent times. Yet even this is somewhat hypothetical, as the only way to know for sure would be to recreate the SCA target armour and actually whack at people with real swords in order to determine what force levels would be required to disable, injure or kill them.I would guess that at least half of the SCA would reject fighting at that level of force.
I don't think we need that level of force.
That being said, I want people that I hit to only accept properly landed, stout blows. If they don't wear armour or proper armour, they will tend to accept blows from me that they should not. I wear armour. I want people to hit me with properly landed, stout blows. Then I can yield to them knowing that they have indeed defeated my defenses and earned the victory.
When you require a light to moderate force level, techniques that simply would not work well against a properly armoured opponent, become popular. It distorts the game.
It is bad enough that we have to use rattan that does not behave like a real steel sword, if you start fighting at slower speeds without force, it quickly becomes totally divorced from any semblance of medieval combat.
Think about what you can do in slow work on a pell with your rattan sword or with the popular whiffle ball bat. The idea is to work through a technique at lower speeds and with less force to get the move right, then to increase the speed and force up to combat or tourney levels as you master the mechanics. The idea is not to practice doing unrealistic things you could not do at speed with force. Too many people want to do the unrealistic things they can do with lower speed, lighter weight, lower force blows in order to be competitive against people they could not beat in a more serious, armoured combat format where full speed and higher levels of force are expected.
I am not advocating insane levels of force. I do think we should all put on armour, not T-shirts/plastic and a kidney belt, and we should hit each other like men.
If this means you can't be successful because you are fat, weak, slow due to a lack of conditioning, stop eating too much and hit the gym. Don't expect others to dilute the power and grace inherent in the form simply because you can't keep up. I currently fall into the fat old guy camp. While I can probably still wax most of the newbies and intermediates, a big chunk of the better fighters and chivalry would probably beat me soundly. That is my fault, not theirs. It is my job to either get in shape and use technique and skill to remain competitive or to stay out of the lists (or at least not complain if I do get my butt kicked due to poor conditioning).
As far as people that want it watered down so that frail men, unathletic women and old people can be competitive, I say screw that. People whose physical disadvantages or limitations prevent them from playing a manly game, should retire or accept defeat graciously, not try to change it to fencing.
There are fighters out there with only one leg or one eye or of great age who still compete. They do not ask for sympathy, mercy or quarter. They still seek to fight the good fight. I will not dishonour their efforts by supporting a move to change what we do into LARP Boffer or armoured fencing levels of armour, weaponry and force. There are plenty of groups that do that and if that is what you want, go fight in one of those groups. The SCA is one of the few places we can explore the limits of safely recreated medieval tournaments, even though I agree it is a limited recreation. I don't want that to change.
Hokay, if I understand correctly, you are advocating using a high level of force to insure that proper body mechanics MUST be used to create a telling blow.
Am I understanding correctly?
Where do you draw the line for hitting to hard?
As for the period examples you mentioned, I have to admit to being unfamiliar with the Scales vs. Bastard fight. Could you point me to the right book please?
It sounds like you know more of Ringeck than I do. Does he make a distinction in fighting in the list for tourney and fighting for real?
Am I understanding correctly?
Where do you draw the line for hitting to hard?
As for the period examples you mentioned, I have to admit to being unfamiliar with the Scales vs. Bastard fight. Could you point me to the right book please?
It sounds like you know more of Ringeck than I do. Does he make a distinction in fighting in the list for tourney and fighting for real?
I'm not sure Rhys meant to imply this, but if you're advocating a level of force that routinely destroys your opponents armor, 99% of us are going to take our toys and play elsewhere. This isn't something I do to prove my masculinity; I do that by being a good husband, a good friend, and a good worker. Fighting is something I do to challenge myself to improve and to have fun. I'm not here to hurt people. Rhys, I apologize in advance if I've misrepresented your position, but your posts here certainly seem to imply that you want this game limited to the heaviest hitters only, with safety and inclusiveness to be disregarded.
You repeatedly mention the importance of a protective harness, but some injuries (joint injuries and dislocations) become more likely in any harness when the force levels are high enough. It also immediately disqualifies those who want to portray early period, live in hot climates, or simply can't afford a suit of white harness. You can tell them, "Suck it up", but I don't think that's a good answer.
There are so many fighters in the SCA who either can't hit with 12-gauge-denting force, or can but choose not to out of compassion and safety conciousness, whom I respect and have learned from, that without them the game just wouldn't be fun anymore for me.
I do honestly welcome your reply.
- Kyle
You repeatedly mention the importance of a protective harness, but some injuries (joint injuries and dislocations) become more likely in any harness when the force levels are high enough. It also immediately disqualifies those who want to portray early period, live in hot climates, or simply can't afford a suit of white harness. You can tell them, "Suck it up", but I don't think that's a good answer.
There are so many fighters in the SCA who either can't hit with 12-gauge-denting force, or can but choose not to out of compassion and safety conciousness, whom I respect and have learned from, that without them the game just wouldn't be fun anymore for me.
I do honestly welcome your reply.
- Kyle
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by markH:
<B>Hokay, if I understand correctly, you are advocating using a high level of force to insure that proper body mechanics MUST be used to create a telling blow.
Am I understanding correctly?
Where do you draw the line for hitting to hard?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, that's right, but there's more to it,too: As I said, the harder we hit, the harder to make a blow land. The harder it is to make a blow land, the higher our skill level must be to win. The high3er our skill level is, the higher the level of others must be to beat us, which means we raise the overall level of skill of the organization. QED.
You draw the line at any point where people are getting real injuries. Bruises are unavoidable, pain inevitable, but damage is unacceptable (except for accidents; they will always happen!).
I chose this as one of my examples because it's such a famous fight. You can find references to it in lots of sources, including Barber and Barker (an *essential* first book for anyone with even the slightest interest in medieval tournaments). A more detailed description can be found in an article published by Dr. Anglo in Archeologia entitled: *Anglo-Burgundian Feats of Arms: Smithfield, June 1467*. Sorry, but my photocpy of this aticle doesn't have the volume number, but a good academic library should be able to find it based on that. One of the lines talks about the Bastard striking Lord Scales so hard that his visor split open far enough you clould slide an ear of corn (which means wheat in period, not maize) through it. Hardly a wimpy blow!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It sounds like you know more of Ringeck than I do. Does he make a distinction in fighting in the list for tourney and fighting for real?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know very little of Ringeck; I've been studying his text every day for months, but it's difficult and complex to interpret. On the other hand, the "fence with all your strength" comment is given under the "tactical basics" section, and is therefore meant to apply to all combat, most of which is *unarmored* in Ringeck. If striking with "all your force" is important in unarmored combat, how much more important is it in armored combat?
Like the other fechtbucher, Ringeck appears to concentrate almost entirely on unarmored fighting and judicial duels in armor; none really talk about armored tournament combat except a l'outrance. However, don't let that make you think that tournament combat was meant to be a lighter affair; the Scales/Bastard fight above was a very friendly deed of arms, and don't forget King Duarte's admonition that all knights must have felt their teeth crack together in violent tournament combat in order to prepare them for war.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Hokay, if I understand correctly, you are advocating using a high level of force to insure that proper body mechanics MUST be used to create a telling blow.
Am I understanding correctly?
Where do you draw the line for hitting to hard?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, that's right, but there's more to it,too: As I said, the harder we hit, the harder to make a blow land. The harder it is to make a blow land, the higher our skill level must be to win. The high3er our skill level is, the higher the level of others must be to beat us, which means we raise the overall level of skill of the organization. QED.
You draw the line at any point where people are getting real injuries. Bruises are unavoidable, pain inevitable, but damage is unacceptable (except for accidents; they will always happen!).
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for the period examples you mentioned, I have to admit to being unfamiliar with the Scales vs. Bastard fight. Could you point me to the right book please?</font>
I chose this as one of my examples because it's such a famous fight. You can find references to it in lots of sources, including Barber and Barker (an *essential* first book for anyone with even the slightest interest in medieval tournaments). A more detailed description can be found in an article published by Dr. Anglo in Archeologia entitled: *Anglo-Burgundian Feats of Arms: Smithfield, June 1467*. Sorry, but my photocpy of this aticle doesn't have the volume number, but a good academic library should be able to find it based on that. One of the lines talks about the Bastard striking Lord Scales so hard that his visor split open far enough you clould slide an ear of corn (which means wheat in period, not maize) through it. Hardly a wimpy blow!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It sounds like you know more of Ringeck than I do. Does he make a distinction in fighting in the list for tourney and fighting for real?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know very little of Ringeck; I've been studying his text every day for months, but it's difficult and complex to interpret. On the other hand, the "fence with all your strength" comment is given under the "tactical basics" section, and is therefore meant to apply to all combat, most of which is *unarmored* in Ringeck. If striking with "all your force" is important in unarmored combat, how much more important is it in armored combat?
Like the other fechtbucher, Ringeck appears to concentrate almost entirely on unarmored fighting and judicial duels in armor; none really talk about armored tournament combat except a l'outrance. However, don't let that make you think that tournament combat was meant to be a lighter affair; the Scales/Bastard fight above was a very friendly deed of arms, and don't forget King Duarte's admonition that all knights must have felt their teeth crack together in violent tournament combat in order to prepare them for war.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
Hiya
I dont think any post I read advocated us going so light as to turn this into kendo, or (lord forbid) LARP. As for myself, I take anything that snaps in clean. key word snap! (you can replace with bang, clang or clunk if you prefer
. I have a definite issue with folks in lots of full plate that cant feel a good blow, (we'll give them the benefit of the doubt) and use that as an excuse to simply win by not getting hit hard enough. You are not in a medieval tournament or war, plain and simple. If you were I would not hit your plate with a stick, I would hit you with a sword, and a sword would give you a much different blow. Also to the best of my knowledge, a medieval tourny was not fought to the death with marshalls busy jawjacking to the peers while the match was going on. It was counted blows, meaning a marshal/official saw the blow land and gave points. I am sure if all medieval tourneys were fought until one opponent's armour was breached, and he died then the tourney would not have been as widely and voluntarily participated in. If you want to "bang to the death" mebbe you should have a gladiator persona. (release the lions!!). The issue of weak men and unathletic women participating, I agree that if you cant hack it then dont play, and that includes slow lumbering overweight men that have to win by encasing themselves in so much steel that they cannot feel a thing and just refuse to aknowledge a shot until they land one of their own.
And as to the Escrima guys syrrhys mentioned, in all fairness I think if you sent 2 newbies with rattan into dan innosanto's gym with sca swords and let them run their mouth then try to fight, they would look just as stupid as the two escrima geeks (and I would bet they were newbie geeks from a bad gym by their actions)
just my position on this issue and this is n no way directed at anyone here, or at anyone in particular.
Have fun play hard and at the end of the day show your bruises with pride
Auto
I dont think any post I read advocated us going so light as to turn this into kendo, or (lord forbid) LARP. As for myself, I take anything that snaps in clean. key word snap! (you can replace with bang, clang or clunk if you prefer
. I have a definite issue with folks in lots of full plate that cant feel a good blow, (we'll give them the benefit of the doubt) and use that as an excuse to simply win by not getting hit hard enough. You are not in a medieval tournament or war, plain and simple. If you were I would not hit your plate with a stick, I would hit you with a sword, and a sword would give you a much different blow. Also to the best of my knowledge, a medieval tourny was not fought to the death with marshalls busy jawjacking to the peers while the match was going on. It was counted blows, meaning a marshal/official saw the blow land and gave points. I am sure if all medieval tourneys were fought until one opponent's armour was breached, and he died then the tourney would not have been as widely and voluntarily participated in. If you want to "bang to the death" mebbe you should have a gladiator persona. (release the lions!!). The issue of weak men and unathletic women participating, I agree that if you cant hack it then dont play, and that includes slow lumbering overweight men that have to win by encasing themselves in so much steel that they cannot feel a thing and just refuse to aknowledge a shot until they land one of their own.And as to the Escrima guys syrrhys mentioned, in all fairness I think if you sent 2 newbies with rattan into dan innosanto's gym with sca swords and let them run their mouth then try to fight, they would look just as stupid as the two escrima geeks (and I would bet they were newbie geeks from a bad gym by their actions)
just my position on this issue and this is n no way directed at anyone here, or at anyone in particular.
Have fun play hard and at the end of the day show your bruises with pride
Auto
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kyle:
<B>I'm not sure Rhys meant to imply this, but if you're advocating a level of force that routinely destroys your opponents armor, 99% of us are going to take our toys and play elsewhere. This isn't something I do to prove my masculinity; I do that by being a good husband, a good friend, and a good worker. Fighting is something I do to challenge myself to improve and to have fun. I'm not here to hurt people. Rhys, I apologize in advance if I've misrepresented your position, but your posts here certainly seem to imply that you want this game limited to the heaviest hitters only, with safety and inclusiveness to be disregarded.
You repeatedly mention the importance of a protective harness, but some injuries (joint injuries and dislocations) become more likely in any harness when the force levels are high enough. It also immediately disqualifies those who want to portray early period, live in hot climates, or simply can't afford a suit of white harness. You can tell them, "Suck it up", but I don't think that's a good answer.
There are so many fighters in the SCA who either can't hit with 12-gauge-denting force, or can but choose not to out of compassion and safety conciousness, whom I respect and have learned from, that without them the game just wouldn't be fun anymore for me.
I do honestly welcome your reply.
- Kyle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please go back and re-read my posts: In every one I was *careful* to say that the force levels I advocate should stop well short of hurting anyone for real. I said it over and over again; why in heaven's name doesn't anyone read that part???????
Nor do I mean to imply we should be "ripping armor"; I used that as an example of what hapened in actual medieval tournament combat between friends. We're not using metal weapons, so we can strike as hard as they did with almost no danger of damage to our opponent's or to our armor; that's the whole point of rattan!
Also, one of my harnesses is a lightly-quilted aketon and lightly-quilted gamboissed cuisses, and I fight in one of the hardest-hitting areas in the country against men who are better than I am: if these force levels require white harnesses whay aren't I getting injured? The answer is that our fighting ISN'T DANGEROUS!!!!! Again, people want to make this a danger issue because it makes them feel macho, but the fact is that it isn't.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>I'm not sure Rhys meant to imply this, but if you're advocating a level of force that routinely destroys your opponents armor, 99% of us are going to take our toys and play elsewhere. This isn't something I do to prove my masculinity; I do that by being a good husband, a good friend, and a good worker. Fighting is something I do to challenge myself to improve and to have fun. I'm not here to hurt people. Rhys, I apologize in advance if I've misrepresented your position, but your posts here certainly seem to imply that you want this game limited to the heaviest hitters only, with safety and inclusiveness to be disregarded.
You repeatedly mention the importance of a protective harness, but some injuries (joint injuries and dislocations) become more likely in any harness when the force levels are high enough. It also immediately disqualifies those who want to portray early period, live in hot climates, or simply can't afford a suit of white harness. You can tell them, "Suck it up", but I don't think that's a good answer.
There are so many fighters in the SCA who either can't hit with 12-gauge-denting force, or can but choose not to out of compassion and safety conciousness, whom I respect and have learned from, that without them the game just wouldn't be fun anymore for me.
I do honestly welcome your reply.
- Kyle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please go back and re-read my posts: In every one I was *careful* to say that the force levels I advocate should stop well short of hurting anyone for real. I said it over and over again; why in heaven's name doesn't anyone read that part???????
Nor do I mean to imply we should be "ripping armor"; I used that as an example of what hapened in actual medieval tournament combat between friends. We're not using metal weapons, so we can strike as hard as they did with almost no danger of damage to our opponent's or to our armor; that's the whole point of rattan!
Also, one of my harnesses is a lightly-quilted aketon and lightly-quilted gamboissed cuisses, and I fight in one of the hardest-hitting areas in the country against men who are better than I am: if these force levels require white harnesses whay aren't I getting injured? The answer is that our fighting ISN'T DANGEROUS!!!!! Again, people want to make this a danger issue because it makes them feel macho, but the fact is that it isn't.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
William MacCrimmon
- New Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: West Orange, NJ, USA
- Contact:
Hjalmr my favorite advice for calibration is advice given me by my knight Sir Wulfstan. I paraphrase this as "Hit hard, take significantly lighter."
After that, talk to your opponents whether it's about your shots or their shots landing on you.
One of hardest things I've found is to talk to an opponent during a tournament about a shot you've just landed. There is a lot of pressure off the field to not whine about shots, and having seen some folks whine when their shots wouldn't break a pane of glass I can understand some that.
I usually won't say anything until about the third repetition, but at some point if the blows feel very solid it's worth discussing this with your opponent or pointing out to them that their armor is beginning to resemble a pile of curly fries. (It happened, ask Richard about that day.)
Conversely, tell them if you think they're taking too light of a blow from you. I won't let someone take a really light blow in a tournament no matter how often I hit them.
Also, they need to know if something they are throwing is light and why if you can tell them.
And you can always ask your opponents if you're taking too light. It sounds like you're calibrating on sound. Many helmets will ring loudly even when hit with light, glancing blows. Make sure you can feel how hard you're being hit and judge from there. If your helmet and provide such good protection that you don't feel much through them remember that when you do feel some force through the armor that your opponent has probably just done something heroic to you. Waiting to feel pain through heavy armor will get you taking very hard, and that will rapidly be no fun when your opponent takes that same level of force to a part of your body that isn't armored.
-William
After that, talk to your opponents whether it's about your shots or their shots landing on you.
One of hardest things I've found is to talk to an opponent during a tournament about a shot you've just landed. There is a lot of pressure off the field to not whine about shots, and having seen some folks whine when their shots wouldn't break a pane of glass I can understand some that.
I usually won't say anything until about the third repetition, but at some point if the blows feel very solid it's worth discussing this with your opponent or pointing out to them that their armor is beginning to resemble a pile of curly fries. (It happened, ask Richard about that day.)
Conversely, tell them if you think they're taking too light of a blow from you. I won't let someone take a really light blow in a tournament no matter how often I hit them.
Also, they need to know if something they are throwing is light and why if you can tell them.
And you can always ask your opponents if you're taking too light. It sounds like you're calibrating on sound. Many helmets will ring loudly even when hit with light, glancing blows. Make sure you can feel how hard you're being hit and judge from there. If your helmet and provide such good protection that you don't feel much through them remember that when you do feel some force through the armor that your opponent has probably just done something heroic to you. Waiting to feel pain through heavy armor will get you taking very hard, and that will rapidly be no fun when your opponent takes that same level of force to a part of your body that isn't armored.
-William
-
William MacCrimmon
- New Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: West Orange, NJ, USA
- Contact:
I can't agree with this. The logic is flawed, it equates high calibration on nearly the same plane as one's skill and technique.
I've watched several fighters too many get their heads pounded up and down so they look like one of those Drinking Happy Birds and still try to not take blows, no thanks.
Ex:
<http://www.butlerlabs.com/drinkingbird.htm>
Some of these fighters were Dukes, some weren't even knights but when you get bent forward six inches to a foot by a blow to the base of your neck one should lay down.
-William
<From Rhys>
Yes, that's right, but there's more to it,too: As I said, the harder we hit, the harder to make a blow land. The harder it is to make a blow land, the higher our skill level must be to win. The high3er our skill level is, the higher the level of others must be to beat us, which means we raise the overall level of skill of the organization. QED.
I've watched several fighters too many get their heads pounded up and down so they look like one of those Drinking Happy Birds and still try to not take blows, no thanks.
Ex:
<http://www.butlerlabs.com/drinkingbird.htm>
Some of these fighters were Dukes, some weren't even knights but when you get bent forward six inches to a foot by a blow to the base of your neck one should lay down.
-William
<From Rhys>
Yes, that's right, but there's more to it,too: As I said, the harder we hit, the harder to make a blow land. The harder it is to make a blow land, the higher our skill level must be to win. The high3er our skill level is, the higher the level of others must be to beat us, which means we raise the overall level of skill of the organization. QED.
Let's see, what was the topic again? Oh, yeah -- is taking light OK?
Others have touched on the core concern, but I fear many have missed the mark (and Rhys, in his enthusiasm to beat the drum of more authentic fighting, went way left of field). Allow me to comment on Hjalmr's original question...
First, it's important to agree on what it is we are doing out there. From the many comments already offered, it is apparent that even this fundamental is difficult to achieve. For my part, the key element of blow acceptance is the act of -choosing- to accept a blow or not. By acknowledging your opponent's strike as good, you are telling him something he cannot determine for himself -- his own success in that bout. This is the true act of -chivalry- we practice in the lists; performing a martial act with someone that is both personal (just between the two of you) and that they cannot do for themselves (only you can say if the blow is good).
If you accept blows that you -know- are not good, then you are, in effect, -lying- to your opponent. You may attempt to mitigate this by explaining your decision ("it was light but clean, so I'll accept it"), but then you risk taking the game to a place your opponent didn't necessarily agree to go. Since so much of what we do is an -assumption- of commonality, intentionally stretching the acceptable limits of force in either direction is potentially deceitful, insofar as your opponent has no reason to expect this based on the history of his experience. In effect, your are being as discourteous to your opponent by taking light blows as by intentionally calling only excessively hard ones -- except that the results are more insidious and your reputation is not tarnished in quite the same way.
To touch on the deeper, more complex issue hinted at my Hjalmr's question, it is essential to understand that it is not important if the blow called is, in fact, "good" or not -- it is the act of -trying- to call it at all that is the true test of honor. Whether the blow was telling is not nearly as important as the effort one makes to judge it in the heat of combat while charged with promoting the inspiration of one's consort. New fighters are the least likely to be able to accurately judge a good blow, and their calibration is often all over the place. "Enthusiastic", or "motivated" fighters can sometimes find themselves wearing their egos like armor and ignoring shots they might otherwise acknowledge. IMnsHO, the struggle for control in these cases is the most telling, and the achievement they demonstrate worthy of the greatest acclaim. For example, the novice who tells the duke the blow was light, and the duke who acknowledges without question the good blow from the novice, should both earn our greater respect and have increase their renown.
Whether all blows are hard is not really germane to the underlying philosophy of what we do. Rhys' arguments fall apart like a warp minus it's weft when faced with the simple reality that we call our own "deaths" -- a practice that, while extremely appealing to our romantic inclination, has no historical provenance whatsoever. The real conundrum comes when you have to judge the "winner" -- for, in fact, what do any of us know about the last man standing in any tournament? In truth, we know nothing abut the "victor"; we only know that every other fighter, for at least one moment in a particular bout, accepted the bounds of our game and accepted their own defeat.
What blows, then, should we call, and what ones pass off? As some have already said, this is really dependent on the local customs. If, by your practice, you exceed the bounds of these customs, then you are violating the basic tenets that bind us together. If a blow is light, then it is that way by common acclaim, and calling it "good" (or worse, "light but good"), demonstrates that you haven't quite grasped what this is all about. And my friend the Duke who once told me that he intentionally took blows that were not good because he knew they would -look- good to a spectator was just as guilty as the worst rhino, because the message he sent to the rest of the fighting community was intentionally meant to mislead -- if even for a supposedly "good" reason.
So, while it was not my intention to outdo Richard by writing even more column inches of grist than he for our collective mill, I hope the above ramblings might shed some perspective on how calling light blows "good" can diminish the game for everyone involved, be it the caller, the opponent, or the assembled gallery. And if this missive serves only to prick Rhys into trying just a little bit harder to stay on topic in the future, then the effort was well worth it *grin*....
-cheval-
Others have touched on the core concern, but I fear many have missed the mark (and Rhys, in his enthusiasm to beat the drum of more authentic fighting, went way left of field). Allow me to comment on Hjalmr's original question...
First, it's important to agree on what it is we are doing out there. From the many comments already offered, it is apparent that even this fundamental is difficult to achieve. For my part, the key element of blow acceptance is the act of -choosing- to accept a blow or not. By acknowledging your opponent's strike as good, you are telling him something he cannot determine for himself -- his own success in that bout. This is the true act of -chivalry- we practice in the lists; performing a martial act with someone that is both personal (just between the two of you) and that they cannot do for themselves (only you can say if the blow is good).
If you accept blows that you -know- are not good, then you are, in effect, -lying- to your opponent. You may attempt to mitigate this by explaining your decision ("it was light but clean, so I'll accept it"), but then you risk taking the game to a place your opponent didn't necessarily agree to go. Since so much of what we do is an -assumption- of commonality, intentionally stretching the acceptable limits of force in either direction is potentially deceitful, insofar as your opponent has no reason to expect this based on the history of his experience. In effect, your are being as discourteous to your opponent by taking light blows as by intentionally calling only excessively hard ones -- except that the results are more insidious and your reputation is not tarnished in quite the same way.
To touch on the deeper, more complex issue hinted at my Hjalmr's question, it is essential to understand that it is not important if the blow called is, in fact, "good" or not -- it is the act of -trying- to call it at all that is the true test of honor. Whether the blow was telling is not nearly as important as the effort one makes to judge it in the heat of combat while charged with promoting the inspiration of one's consort. New fighters are the least likely to be able to accurately judge a good blow, and their calibration is often all over the place. "Enthusiastic", or "motivated" fighters can sometimes find themselves wearing their egos like armor and ignoring shots they might otherwise acknowledge. IMnsHO, the struggle for control in these cases is the most telling, and the achievement they demonstrate worthy of the greatest acclaim. For example, the novice who tells the duke the blow was light, and the duke who acknowledges without question the good blow from the novice, should both earn our greater respect and have increase their renown.
Whether all blows are hard is not really germane to the underlying philosophy of what we do. Rhys' arguments fall apart like a warp minus it's weft when faced with the simple reality that we call our own "deaths" -- a practice that, while extremely appealing to our romantic inclination, has no historical provenance whatsoever. The real conundrum comes when you have to judge the "winner" -- for, in fact, what do any of us know about the last man standing in any tournament? In truth, we know nothing abut the "victor"; we only know that every other fighter, for at least one moment in a particular bout, accepted the bounds of our game and accepted their own defeat.
What blows, then, should we call, and what ones pass off? As some have already said, this is really dependent on the local customs. If, by your practice, you exceed the bounds of these customs, then you are violating the basic tenets that bind us together. If a blow is light, then it is that way by common acclaim, and calling it "good" (or worse, "light but good"), demonstrates that you haven't quite grasped what this is all about. And my friend the Duke who once told me that he intentionally took blows that were not good because he knew they would -look- good to a spectator was just as guilty as the worst rhino, because the message he sent to the rest of the fighting community was intentionally meant to mislead -- if even for a supposedly "good" reason.
So, while it was not my intention to outdo Richard by writing even more column inches of grist than he for our collective mill, I hope the above ramblings might shed some perspective on how calling light blows "good" can diminish the game for everyone involved, be it the caller, the opponent, or the assembled gallery. And if this missive serves only to prick Rhys into trying just a little bit harder to stay on topic in the future, then the effort was well worth it *grin*....
-cheval-
William,
I fear you miss the thrust of Rhys' point. The purpose is not to continue to escalate to unsafe levels of force, but to discover the bounds of acceptable force we can safely practice short of injury. I cannot fault this thesis (even if it is not really what Hjalmr was asking *grin*), and we have proven time and again that the safe level of force achievable is, for the most part, well beyond what many of the kingdoms practice.
And despite Diolun's concerns, the argument of spiraling calibration has long been an unproven part of our culture -- it simply does not happen.
With respect,
-cheval-
I fear you miss the thrust of Rhys' point. The purpose is not to continue to escalate to unsafe levels of force, but to discover the bounds of acceptable force we can safely practice short of injury. I cannot fault this thesis (even if it is not really what Hjalmr was asking *grin*), and we have proven time and again that the safe level of force achievable is, for the most part, well beyond what many of the kingdoms practice.
And despite Diolun's concerns, the argument of spiraling calibration has long been an unproven part of our culture -- it simply does not happen.
With respect,
-cheval-
SyrRhys, thanks for the refrences, I need to get on that reading. You actually reminded me of the deeds of arms of Jacque de Lalaing. He also fought "friendly" passages with arms. They were using sharp weapons of war, and were exchanging as much as sixty blows with poleaxes when they were ripping armour.
On the other hand, I belive it was Fiore who advised fighting five times in the lists fully armored before fighting without armor, because injuries were very rare.
The SCA tourneys as we fight them seem fairly removed from the tourneys of yesteryear. Do you know of any writings that deal with behourd combat to counted blows?
I was actually thinking that those writings would translate better to SCA combat as it is practiced now.
On the other hand, I belive it was Fiore who advised fighting five times in the lists fully armored before fighting without armor, because injuries were very rare.
The SCA tourneys as we fight them seem fairly removed from the tourneys of yesteryear. Do you know of any writings that deal with behourd combat to counted blows?
I was actually thinking that those writings would translate better to SCA combat as it is practiced now.
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by William MacCrimmon:
<B> I can't agree with this. The logic is flawed, it equates high calibration on nearly the same plane as one's skill and technique.
I've watched several fighters too many get their heads pounded up and down so they look like one of those Drinking Happy Birds and still try to not take blows, no thanks.
Ex:
<http://www.butlerlabs.com/drinkingbird.htm>
Some of these fighters were Dukes, some weren't even knights but when you get bent forward six inches to a foot by a blow to the base of your neck one should lay down.
-William
QED.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B> I can't agree with this. The logic is flawed, it equates high calibration on nearly the same plane as one's skill and technique.
I've watched several fighters too many get their heads pounded up and down so they look like one of those Drinking Happy Birds and still try to not take blows, no thanks.
Ex:
<http://www.butlerlabs.com/drinkingbird.htm>
Some of these fighters were Dukes, some weren't even knights but when you get bent forward six inches to a foot by a blow to the base of your neck one should lay down.
-William
QED.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by markH:
<B>SyrRhys, thanks for the refrences, I need to get on that reading. You actually reminded me of the deeds of arms of Jacque de Lalaing. He also fought "friendly" passages with arms. They were using sharp weapons of war, and were exchanging as much as sixty blows with poleaxes when they were ripping armour.
On the other hand, I belive it was Fiore who advised fighting five times in the lists fully armored before fighting without armor, because injuries were very rare.
The SCA tourneys as we fight them seem fairly removed from the tourneys of yesteryear. Do you know of any writings that deal with behourd combat to counted blows?
I was actually thinking that those writings would translate better to SCA combat as it is practiced now.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's a new tournament tradition that's happening in the SCA: The tournament company movement.
We in the Company of St. Michael have been pushing our three-blow system for some time as a more accurate way of reflecting real medieval combat; we don't act out blows, we simply say that when you've been hit three times that represents the kind of battering that would have forced you to yield in period. Note that I'm not talking about swung blows; that's something different. We can swing as often as we want; what we're trying to do is create a more realistic recreation of medieval combat.
So, in that sense, our counted blow system is much closer to the real thing, even though they didn't actually count the number of tiems they hit someone.
We're beginning to experiment with ways to make do limited grappling safely, we have tules about thrusts to unarmored spots ending the fight, as does being knocked down or droppign your weapon... lots of things like that that make fighting *much* closer to real medieval combat. Can we ever be perfect? No, of course not. But we can be much closer then standard SCA fighting!
Does that answer your question?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>SyrRhys, thanks for the refrences, I need to get on that reading. You actually reminded me of the deeds of arms of Jacque de Lalaing. He also fought "friendly" passages with arms. They were using sharp weapons of war, and were exchanging as much as sixty blows with poleaxes when they were ripping armour.
On the other hand, I belive it was Fiore who advised fighting five times in the lists fully armored before fighting without armor, because injuries were very rare.
The SCA tourneys as we fight them seem fairly removed from the tourneys of yesteryear. Do you know of any writings that deal with behourd combat to counted blows?
I was actually thinking that those writings would translate better to SCA combat as it is practiced now.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's a new tournament tradition that's happening in the SCA: The tournament company movement.
We in the Company of St. Michael have been pushing our three-blow system for some time as a more accurate way of reflecting real medieval combat; we don't act out blows, we simply say that when you've been hit three times that represents the kind of battering that would have forced you to yield in period. Note that I'm not talking about swung blows; that's something different. We can swing as often as we want; what we're trying to do is create a more realistic recreation of medieval combat.
So, in that sense, our counted blow system is much closer to the real thing, even though they didn't actually count the number of tiems they hit someone.
We're beginning to experiment with ways to make do limited grappling safely, we have tules about thrusts to unarmored spots ending the fight, as does being knocked down or droppign your weapon... lots of things like that that make fighting *much* closer to real medieval combat. Can we ever be perfect? No, of course not. But we can be much closer then standard SCA fighting!
Does that answer your question?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cheval:
<B>Whether all blows are hard is not really germane to the underlying philosophy of what we do. Rhys' arguments fall apart like a warp minus it's weft when faced with the simple reality that we call our own "deaths" -- a practice that, while extremely appealing to our romantic inclination, has no historical provenance whatsoever. The real conundrum comes when you have to judge the "winner" -- for, in fact, what do any of us know about the last man standing in any tournament? In truth, we know nothing abut the "victor"; we only know that every other fighter, for at least one moment in a particular bout, accepted the bounds of our game and accepted their own defeat.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't actually agree with you here: In period, you didn't fight "to the death" very often, even in war. In armored combat what usually happened was that either the person sponsoring the deed of arms recognized that "enough had been done" and signified it by tossing down his baton (etc.) or you yielded because you'd been battered down. Our fighting, and especially the counted blow fighting that is now taking place, simply recognizes this.
[quote}And if this missive serves only to prick Rhys into trying just a little bit harder to stay on topic in the future, then the effort was well worth it *grin*....
-cheval-</B>[/QUOTE]
LOL! Ouch, I think...
Sorry, but if you go back you'll see I only deviated when my basic assumptions (which are the same as yours, for the most part) were challenged, so I had to go to root principles to prove my point.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Whether all blows are hard is not really germane to the underlying philosophy of what we do. Rhys' arguments fall apart like a warp minus it's weft when faced with the simple reality that we call our own "deaths" -- a practice that, while extremely appealing to our romantic inclination, has no historical provenance whatsoever. The real conundrum comes when you have to judge the "winner" -- for, in fact, what do any of us know about the last man standing in any tournament? In truth, we know nothing abut the "victor"; we only know that every other fighter, for at least one moment in a particular bout, accepted the bounds of our game and accepted their own defeat.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't actually agree with you here: In period, you didn't fight "to the death" very often, even in war. In armored combat what usually happened was that either the person sponsoring the deed of arms recognized that "enough had been done" and signified it by tossing down his baton (etc.) or you yielded because you'd been battered down. Our fighting, and especially the counted blow fighting that is now taking place, simply recognizes this.
[quote}And if this missive serves only to prick Rhys into trying just a little bit harder to stay on topic in the future, then the effort was well worth it *grin*....
-cheval-</B>[/QUOTE]
LOL! Ouch, I think...
Sorry, but if you go back you'll see I only deviated when my basic assumptions (which are the same as yours, for the most part) were challenged, so I had to go to root principles to prove my point.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
muttman
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2644
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Aethelmarc (upstate NY)
Quoted from Sir Shys
"The bottom line is if you don't do it full speed and full power you're not doing the real thing, and your just playing tag. If that's what you like, hey, go for it. Somewhere else."
I may be misunderstanding here, but I have caught similar statements from you in other topics and they seem to be saying the same thing.
The SCA, as a group that consists of thousands of combat participants all playing at one general level (there may be fluctuations from person to person and area to area, but the base line we all play at is close enough that most fighters can go to different areas and still play the same game)and the majority are happy with that level. There is always room for improvement, but generaly speaking tha average SCA fighter is alright with things.
Then there is Sir Rhys (and probably other like minded folks) who want to "crank it up a notch". Want to bring it to the next level or so and make it more like "the real thing". There is nothing wrong with those aspirations and I aplaud the effort.
Where I start to have issues is with the"we should all play my way and if you don`t like it go play something else" attitude. I`m sorry, but your one guy with ideas not currently in sync with what the rest of the SCAs combat system works with. You are the one who needs to "go for it, somewhere else".
I have also caught some attitude of "if you don`t like it you must not be able to hack it so go home" Not said in so many words, but read between the lines.
Maybe some folks can hack it but just don`t want to. The SCA is a game, thats it. Most folks are there to have fun and play at king aurther ect. on there weekends. It is intense and real enough as it is for many. Personaly, if I wanted to get the idea of what it really felt like to be a knight at tourny I would train every day, be in outstanding physical shape, and be prepared to give up my Jeep Grand Cherokee when I lost. There would be enough on the line that it wouldn`t be a game, it would be a proffesion. I am not interested in that. If you are, great! More power to you, but remember whose game you are playing. Don`t show up at a karate tournament and play by muay tai rules, then belittle those who don`t like the new level of intesity. You are playing a differnt game than they are at there event. Instead gather up some like minded friends and ask to do a muay tai exhibition at the karate tourny. You will likely get many converts without crapping all over the people who are happy doing karate. Its the same thing here.
In closing, I don`t know you and the written word sometimes comes across different than in person so I could be mistaken on how I interperet some of the things you say. The feeling I get from many of your posts however is that you feel that SCA combat should only be done the way you want it to and everyone who disagrees should piss off because they are just too frail for the "real thing"
And B) I get a real sense of elitism from you. If your not a big strong manly man who can afford high quality harness then you don`t belong here and should leave so only the big, strong manly men with expensive armor can play. I most whole heartadly disagree with that. One of the things I like about SCA combat is the inclusivness.It is an intense activity that most can safely participate in and have fun. That doesn`t mean that I will tone things down for the small and the weak. They have to hit me as hard as everyone else for me to take a shot, and I don`t dumb down my defense or offense for anyone but newbies who need training. If a 120 pound 5 foot 2 woman wants to compete and accepts that she may never be an upper level fighter do to her limitations, more power to her. I prbably won`t hit her as hard as I would a 6 foot 5 350 pound monster just because it probably would be way too much. If she calls lighter, I will hit her at what she feels is fair. More would just be mean. Thats a personal thing, and I don`t expect anyone to do the same for me just because I am on the small side. I also don`t expect to be hit excessivly hard unless my behavior warrents it(like rhino ing).
Basicaly, my point if you couldn`t get it though my rambling, is that I am comfortable with the intesity level where it is. Many folks are. I resent the attitude of the few trying to impose there wishes to crank it up on the many. I resent the attitude that only the physical elite should be playing. And I resent the attidude that those who don`t want to crank it up are scared of being hurt, scared of losing, craven( I believe the word was used in another thread), or any other negative spin one can put on it.
If I am mistaken in my obsevations, please, by all means let me know. As I said, I am aware that the written word doen`t carry the same inflections and tones that the spoken word does and can therefore be misinterperetd. If I am wrong, please state your position more clearly to me. And if I am wrong, I most humbly apologize and will delete this post if you wish as it is full of incorrect acusations and interpertations against you.
If I am right, can you explain why we should all play the game your way instead of you playing ours? I would love to have you explain your position so I can better understand it.
John
"The bottom line is if you don't do it full speed and full power you're not doing the real thing, and your just playing tag. If that's what you like, hey, go for it. Somewhere else."
I may be misunderstanding here, but I have caught similar statements from you in other topics and they seem to be saying the same thing.
The SCA, as a group that consists of thousands of combat participants all playing at one general level (there may be fluctuations from person to person and area to area, but the base line we all play at is close enough that most fighters can go to different areas and still play the same game)and the majority are happy with that level. There is always room for improvement, but generaly speaking tha average SCA fighter is alright with things.
Then there is Sir Rhys (and probably other like minded folks) who want to "crank it up a notch". Want to bring it to the next level or so and make it more like "the real thing". There is nothing wrong with those aspirations and I aplaud the effort.
Where I start to have issues is with the"we should all play my way and if you don`t like it go play something else" attitude. I`m sorry, but your one guy with ideas not currently in sync with what the rest of the SCAs combat system works with. You are the one who needs to "go for it, somewhere else".
I have also caught some attitude of "if you don`t like it you must not be able to hack it so go home" Not said in so many words, but read between the lines.
Maybe some folks can hack it but just don`t want to. The SCA is a game, thats it. Most folks are there to have fun and play at king aurther ect. on there weekends. It is intense and real enough as it is for many. Personaly, if I wanted to get the idea of what it really felt like to be a knight at tourny I would train every day, be in outstanding physical shape, and be prepared to give up my Jeep Grand Cherokee when I lost. There would be enough on the line that it wouldn`t be a game, it would be a proffesion. I am not interested in that. If you are, great! More power to you, but remember whose game you are playing. Don`t show up at a karate tournament and play by muay tai rules, then belittle those who don`t like the new level of intesity. You are playing a differnt game than they are at there event. Instead gather up some like minded friends and ask to do a muay tai exhibition at the karate tourny. You will likely get many converts without crapping all over the people who are happy doing karate. Its the same thing here.
In closing, I don`t know you and the written word sometimes comes across different than in person so I could be mistaken on how I interperet some of the things you say. The feeling I get from many of your posts however is that you feel that SCA combat should only be done the way you want it to and everyone who disagrees should piss off because they are just too frail for the "real thing"
And B) I get a real sense of elitism from you. If your not a big strong manly man who can afford high quality harness then you don`t belong here and should leave so only the big, strong manly men with expensive armor can play. I most whole heartadly disagree with that. One of the things I like about SCA combat is the inclusivness.It is an intense activity that most can safely participate in and have fun. That doesn`t mean that I will tone things down for the small and the weak. They have to hit me as hard as everyone else for me to take a shot, and I don`t dumb down my defense or offense for anyone but newbies who need training. If a 120 pound 5 foot 2 woman wants to compete and accepts that she may never be an upper level fighter do to her limitations, more power to her. I prbably won`t hit her as hard as I would a 6 foot 5 350 pound monster just because it probably would be way too much. If she calls lighter, I will hit her at what she feels is fair. More would just be mean. Thats a personal thing, and I don`t expect anyone to do the same for me just because I am on the small side. I also don`t expect to be hit excessivly hard unless my behavior warrents it(like rhino ing).
Basicaly, my point if you couldn`t get it though my rambling, is that I am comfortable with the intesity level where it is. Many folks are. I resent the attitude of the few trying to impose there wishes to crank it up on the many. I resent the attitude that only the physical elite should be playing. And I resent the attidude that those who don`t want to crank it up are scared of being hurt, scared of losing, craven( I believe the word was used in another thread), or any other negative spin one can put on it.
If I am mistaken in my obsevations, please, by all means let me know. As I said, I am aware that the written word doen`t carry the same inflections and tones that the spoken word does and can therefore be misinterperetd. If I am wrong, please state your position more clearly to me. And if I am wrong, I most humbly apologize and will delete this post if you wish as it is full of incorrect acusations and interpertations against you.
If I am right, can you explain why we should all play the game your way instead of you playing ours? I would love to have you explain your position so I can better understand it.
John
Rhys,
I do see that you said several times that your intent was not to injure or cause pain. As for the rest, I think it could be attributed to differences in fighting styles and experiences. For instance, you wrote:
:quote
What you're going to find is that it's *much* easier for your "target" to bat your hand away when you strike the powerful blow than it is when you make a light, quick blow. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that when you really put your muscles into the blow it moves more slowly, and the fact that you must necessarily telegraph your motion more if you really put everything into it.
quote:
As I was trained, a powerful blow actually moves faster than a casual blow. This is because power is achieved by enlisting all of the muscles that add to the motion, and relaxing all of the muscles that oppose it. In this way, force over resistance is maximized, which leads to maximum acceleration, which leads to maximum velocity and power in the blow (the mass of your weapon is a constant). For the casual blow, you "hold something back" i.e. provide resistance from your opposing muscles. Both accuracy and power are controlled by focus; pick your target, and focus your power at a point 1-3 inches below the surface. The time to select that focus may give a lag time before the blow is begun, but once begun it is as fast as possible. Before it's begun, all muscles should be completely relaxed, with the result that there's no anticipatory movement. That's the theory - I only intermittently achieve this ideal. Once you have the muscle mechanics and the focus down, you can throw any blow in your repitoire as hard or as light as you wish, just by consciously varying the focus depth, so the force level of the fight becomes a matter of choice, not a matter of skill level.
My experiences have been that, when I don't regulate my force, many people don't want to fight with me anymore if there's a chance I'll hit them. Maybe it's the local cultures where I've played, but I've liked these people, enjoyed fighting them, and so I've learned to regulate my force level. "Don't break your toys", my knight has told me on more than one occasion.
On the virtues and vices of inclusiveness; well, there we're just gonna disagree. Oh well.
Side note on face thrusts: Many Midrealmers, only relatively recently allowed to face thrust at all, have visions of crushed grills, broken noses, and neck braces dancing in their heads. Give them time (and better strapping arrangements). Also, it's not that difficult to deliver (in a bout, not just against a static target) a way-excessive face thrust. In fact, this is one of the shots I threw that had friends saying "Kyle, if you don't lighten your face thrusts, I'm not going to play with you anymore." I've learned to reduce my thrusts to the positive-force level, and consider myself more skilled for it.
So maybe it comes down to this: I'm a reformed brute who's been repeatedly told to tone it down, and you believe that harder = more skilled and more skilled = harder. My concern is that the hard(skilled) level should still be held below the injury or pain causing level, which I recognize is your intent as well. I also agree that everyone should be armored such that the "pain-causing" level is not too low, by way of the "If it's sore after practice, put more armor on it" rule.
- Kyle
I do see that you said several times that your intent was not to injure or cause pain. As for the rest, I think it could be attributed to differences in fighting styles and experiences. For instance, you wrote:
:quote
What you're going to find is that it's *much* easier for your "target" to bat your hand away when you strike the powerful blow than it is when you make a light, quick blow. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that when you really put your muscles into the blow it moves more slowly, and the fact that you must necessarily telegraph your motion more if you really put everything into it.
quote:
As I was trained, a powerful blow actually moves faster than a casual blow. This is because power is achieved by enlisting all of the muscles that add to the motion, and relaxing all of the muscles that oppose it. In this way, force over resistance is maximized, which leads to maximum acceleration, which leads to maximum velocity and power in the blow (the mass of your weapon is a constant). For the casual blow, you "hold something back" i.e. provide resistance from your opposing muscles. Both accuracy and power are controlled by focus; pick your target, and focus your power at a point 1-3 inches below the surface. The time to select that focus may give a lag time before the blow is begun, but once begun it is as fast as possible. Before it's begun, all muscles should be completely relaxed, with the result that there's no anticipatory movement. That's the theory - I only intermittently achieve this ideal. Once you have the muscle mechanics and the focus down, you can throw any blow in your repitoire as hard or as light as you wish, just by consciously varying the focus depth, so the force level of the fight becomes a matter of choice, not a matter of skill level.
My experiences have been that, when I don't regulate my force, many people don't want to fight with me anymore if there's a chance I'll hit them. Maybe it's the local cultures where I've played, but I've liked these people, enjoyed fighting them, and so I've learned to regulate my force level. "Don't break your toys", my knight has told me on more than one occasion.
On the virtues and vices of inclusiveness; well, there we're just gonna disagree. Oh well.
Side note on face thrusts: Many Midrealmers, only relatively recently allowed to face thrust at all, have visions of crushed grills, broken noses, and neck braces dancing in their heads. Give them time (and better strapping arrangements). Also, it's not that difficult to deliver (in a bout, not just against a static target) a way-excessive face thrust. In fact, this is one of the shots I threw that had friends saying "Kyle, if you don't lighten your face thrusts, I'm not going to play with you anymore." I've learned to reduce my thrusts to the positive-force level, and consider myself more skilled for it.
So maybe it comes down to this: I'm a reformed brute who's been repeatedly told to tone it down, and you believe that harder = more skilled and more skilled = harder. My concern is that the hard(skilled) level should still be held below the injury or pain causing level, which I recognize is your intent as well. I also agree that everyone should be armored such that the "pain-causing" level is not too low, by way of the "If it's sore after practice, put more armor on it" rule.
- Kyle
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by muttman:
<B> If I am mistaken in my obsevations, please, by all means let me know. As I said, I am aware that the written word doen`t carry the same inflections and tones that the spoken word does and can therefore be misinterperetd. If I am wrong, please state your position more clearly to me. And if I am wrong, I most humbly apologize and will delete this post if you wish as it is full of incorrect acusations and interpertations against you.
If I am right, can you explain why we should all play the game your way instead of you playing ours? I would love to have you explain your position so I can better understand it.
John
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are not so much wrong as confused. I'm no physical paragon, son, believe me. This isn't about making things the way *I* want them to be, it's about making them the way they*should* be. Believe me, if we made them the way *I* want them to be, only a handful of people would fight at all.
There are a lot more people who think the way I do than will admit it; they're afraid that people will brand them thugs as you're implying I am. I'm sorry you think levels are fine now, but that's your call.
The reason I think things need to be improved is because we can move closer to a better understanding of medieval tournament combat. As things are now, it's pretty terrible, but we have so much opportunity to improve things. We're just playing a game, when we have the opportunity to actually learn atbout medieval combat in a way that all the guys in t-shirts waving wasters about never can.
It doesn't take better armor, and it doesn't take physical perfection, believe me. This just isn't as dangerous as you've been mistakenly led to believe.
There are some folks that can't play now; should we lighten things up so they can play? Of course not. Must we always stay stagnant and remain where we are? I certainly hope not! We must continue to improve and to strive to increase both the level of our fighting
As for being an elitist, why thank you! What a kind and generous thing to say! I honestly appreciate the compliment.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B> If I am mistaken in my obsevations, please, by all means let me know. As I said, I am aware that the written word doen`t carry the same inflections and tones that the spoken word does and can therefore be misinterperetd. If I am wrong, please state your position more clearly to me. And if I am wrong, I most humbly apologize and will delete this post if you wish as it is full of incorrect acusations and interpertations against you.
If I am right, can you explain why we should all play the game your way instead of you playing ours? I would love to have you explain your position so I can better understand it.
John
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are not so much wrong as confused. I'm no physical paragon, son, believe me. This isn't about making things the way *I* want them to be, it's about making them the way they*should* be. Believe me, if we made them the way *I* want them to be, only a handful of people would fight at all.
There are a lot more people who think the way I do than will admit it; they're afraid that people will brand them thugs as you're implying I am. I'm sorry you think levels are fine now, but that's your call.
The reason I think things need to be improved is because we can move closer to a better understanding of medieval tournament combat. As things are now, it's pretty terrible, but we have so much opportunity to improve things. We're just playing a game, when we have the opportunity to actually learn atbout medieval combat in a way that all the guys in t-shirts waving wasters about never can.
It doesn't take better armor, and it doesn't take physical perfection, believe me. This just isn't as dangerous as you've been mistakenly led to believe.
There are some folks that can't play now; should we lighten things up so they can play? Of course not. Must we always stay stagnant and remain where we are? I certainly hope not! We must continue to improve and to strive to increase both the level of our fighting
As for being an elitist, why thank you! What a kind and generous thing to say! I honestly appreciate the compliment.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
muttman
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2644
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Aethelmarc (upstate NY)
Sir Rhys, In response,
"This isn't about making things the way *I* want them to be, it's about making them the way they*should* be. "
Should be is very subjective. Your idea and mine might not click. As long as we can both play and have fun this isn`t a problem. Its only when the views of one try to override the many that I have a problem.
"There are a lot more people who think the way I do than will admit it; they're afraid that people will brand them thugs as you're implying I am."
No, I did not mean to imply that you are a thug. I have known real life thugs and would brand few people with the same iron. Futhermore, if it becomes appearant that I am in the minority, I will shut up and play the way everyone wants to or I will go home.
"It doesn't take better armor, and it doesn't take physical perfection, believe me. This just isn't as dangerous as you've been mistakenly led to believe."
My problem is not with danger. I really don`t think some of the people advocating some of these things are activly wishing to see people hurt. Its more a comfort level thing. I am comfortable that the level I hit people isn`t going to result in any signifigant injurys. I am also comfortable that the level I take shots isn`t going to get me any signifigant injurys. I see no reason to raise the bar. Same with grappeling. I do think there is some room for manouvering there, but I don`t want to see it go to a level that can cause injurys, and I think many folks would bring it there.
"We're just playing a game, when we have the opportunity to actually learn atbout medieval combat in a way that all the guys in t-shirts waving wasters about never can."
I agree and disagree with this. I agree that its just a game. Thats all it is to me and all its likely to remain. If I learn things along the way, all the better. but the bottom line for me is I just want to dress up in armor and hit my "friends" with sticks. I do also agree that we have the opprotunity to take our understanding to levels that the t-shirt and waster crowd never can. That is not a bad thing, but what about the folks who don`t care? What about those who just want to bang? What if they are the majority? I honestly don`t know. I also agree that there is some room for improvement but too much too fast can be a lot to expect some folks to take. I also will add here that I am generaly resistant to change from the outset. Not just for the SCA, but for most aspects of my life. I will also admit that frequently once I give in I am proven that my misgivings were wrong. This is just part of who I am, It is frequently just a knee jerk reaction for me to respond'NO" to any suggestions of changing things. I know this which is why I will gladly give folks the opprotunity to prove me wrong.
"There are some folks that can't play now; should we lighten things up so they can play? Of course not. Must we always stay stagnant and remain where we are? I certainly hope not! We must continue to improve and to strive to increase both the level of our fighting"
Hmmm, thats a thinker. No, I don`t want things to stagnate. I think they can move foward, but at the same time I would like for everyone who wants to participate to be able to.
I kind of see the people who can`t play now, or won`t be able to later as the kid with the broken leg during summer vacation watching all the other kids play all day in the pool from his bedroom window.(yes, I`m a Simpsons fan) Or the kid with asthma and allergies who couldn`t play outside with his friends and had to watch the fun from the porch wishing he could play. I always felt bad for that kid and took the time to play on the porch with him.(even when the other kids tried to poke fun for playing with "the geek")And I always tried to find a way for him to play too. Same kind of thing. I don`t wish to see this become a larp weenie type game though. There may be some way for everyone to get what they want tho, but what that is eludes me.
"As for being an elitist, why thank you! What a kind and generous thing to say! I honestly appreciate the compliment"
To each there own. Just as long as yours doesn`t intrude on mine and interfere with my good time and vice versa, I think we can all be happy.
In short, While I may disagree with some of the things you propose, and some of the methods you propose them with, I also do agree with some.
I hope you havn`t gotten the impresion that I harbor some hostility or ill will towards you. I don`t. I rarely jump to such a place with people who I havn`t met personaly unless they prove to be an unmitigated ass hole, and you have not. I do disagree with you sometimes (alright, frequently) and see no reason to stifle my opinions when I get the urge to put them out there, but I will wait to decide you are an asshole until I have the chance to meet you in person
I am still interested in seeing and even participating in some of the things you propose and will probably look for you and yours at war for just that purpose. I am perfectly willing to give you the chance to prove some of my misgivings wrong, and if convinced will gladly admit my error. I just have yet to have that opprotunity, so until then I will continue to have doubts.
BTW, I checked out your website and I must say you definitly have and have had some impressive dogs. While I prefer pit bulls, I have always admired performance bred dogs of any breed and greyhounds are one of my favorites. Beutifull hawk too tho I must add I probably couldn`t tell a good one from a bad one, but she sure looked like a good one to my untrained eye. I had always wanted to take up falconry until I started to look into it. Way too much on my plate to take on that kind of commitement.
John
"This isn't about making things the way *I* want them to be, it's about making them the way they*should* be. "
Should be is very subjective. Your idea and mine might not click. As long as we can both play and have fun this isn`t a problem. Its only when the views of one try to override the many that I have a problem.
"There are a lot more people who think the way I do than will admit it; they're afraid that people will brand them thugs as you're implying I am."
No, I did not mean to imply that you are a thug. I have known real life thugs and would brand few people with the same iron. Futhermore, if it becomes appearant that I am in the minority, I will shut up and play the way everyone wants to or I will go home.
"It doesn't take better armor, and it doesn't take physical perfection, believe me. This just isn't as dangerous as you've been mistakenly led to believe."
My problem is not with danger. I really don`t think some of the people advocating some of these things are activly wishing to see people hurt. Its more a comfort level thing. I am comfortable that the level I hit people isn`t going to result in any signifigant injurys. I am also comfortable that the level I take shots isn`t going to get me any signifigant injurys. I see no reason to raise the bar. Same with grappeling. I do think there is some room for manouvering there, but I don`t want to see it go to a level that can cause injurys, and I think many folks would bring it there.
"We're just playing a game, when we have the opportunity to actually learn atbout medieval combat in a way that all the guys in t-shirts waving wasters about never can."
I agree and disagree with this. I agree that its just a game. Thats all it is to me and all its likely to remain. If I learn things along the way, all the better. but the bottom line for me is I just want to dress up in armor and hit my "friends" with sticks. I do also agree that we have the opprotunity to take our understanding to levels that the t-shirt and waster crowd never can. That is not a bad thing, but what about the folks who don`t care? What about those who just want to bang? What if they are the majority? I honestly don`t know. I also agree that there is some room for improvement but too much too fast can be a lot to expect some folks to take. I also will add here that I am generaly resistant to change from the outset. Not just for the SCA, but for most aspects of my life. I will also admit that frequently once I give in I am proven that my misgivings were wrong. This is just part of who I am, It is frequently just a knee jerk reaction for me to respond'NO" to any suggestions of changing things. I know this which is why I will gladly give folks the opprotunity to prove me wrong.
"There are some folks that can't play now; should we lighten things up so they can play? Of course not. Must we always stay stagnant and remain where we are? I certainly hope not! We must continue to improve and to strive to increase both the level of our fighting"
Hmmm, thats a thinker. No, I don`t want things to stagnate. I think they can move foward, but at the same time I would like for everyone who wants to participate to be able to.
I kind of see the people who can`t play now, or won`t be able to later as the kid with the broken leg during summer vacation watching all the other kids play all day in the pool from his bedroom window.(yes, I`m a Simpsons fan) Or the kid with asthma and allergies who couldn`t play outside with his friends and had to watch the fun from the porch wishing he could play. I always felt bad for that kid and took the time to play on the porch with him.(even when the other kids tried to poke fun for playing with "the geek")And I always tried to find a way for him to play too. Same kind of thing. I don`t wish to see this become a larp weenie type game though. There may be some way for everyone to get what they want tho, but what that is eludes me.
"As for being an elitist, why thank you! What a kind and generous thing to say! I honestly appreciate the compliment"
To each there own. Just as long as yours doesn`t intrude on mine and interfere with my good time and vice versa, I think we can all be happy.
In short, While I may disagree with some of the things you propose, and some of the methods you propose them with, I also do agree with some.
I hope you havn`t gotten the impresion that I harbor some hostility or ill will towards you. I don`t. I rarely jump to such a place with people who I havn`t met personaly unless they prove to be an unmitigated ass hole, and you have not. I do disagree with you sometimes (alright, frequently) and see no reason to stifle my opinions when I get the urge to put them out there, but I will wait to decide you are an asshole until I have the chance to meet you in person
I am still interested in seeing and even participating in some of the things you propose and will probably look for you and yours at war for just that purpose. I am perfectly willing to give you the chance to prove some of my misgivings wrong, and if convinced will gladly admit my error. I just have yet to have that opprotunity, so until then I will continue to have doubts.
BTW, I checked out your website and I must say you definitly have and have had some impressive dogs. While I prefer pit bulls, I have always admired performance bred dogs of any breed and greyhounds are one of my favorites. Beutifull hawk too tho I must add I probably couldn`t tell a good one from a bad one, but she sure looked like a good one to my untrained eye. I had always wanted to take up falconry until I started to look into it. Way too much on my plate to take on that kind of commitement.
John
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by muttman:
Should be is very subjective. Your idea and mine might not click. As long as we can both play and have fun this isn`t a problem. Its only when the views of one try to override the many that I have a problem.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're absolutely right. But what I'm trying to teach and lead people toward is based on medieval models; it gives a validity to what we do by making it a process of study and learning. I would argue that it's almost always more meaningful to do something realistically than to pretend to do it, wouldn't you agree? You're argument seems to be (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) that we should just let everyone have fun. Sadly, the implication of that position is that my way *isn't* fun, and there I don't agree. I think people will have *more* fun my way, except for those who don't want to play a rougher game because they feel they can't do well at it, and I would argue we're much better off without that kind of person.
What you just said is that your problem lies in concerns that the harder game I advocate will cause injuries; how is this not about danger? Sorry, but I think you're contradicting yourself here.
I keep giving you the reason for raising the bar: It's more realistic, and it makes our art more "real".
Neither do I. But we're a *long* way from there!
Sorry, but I won't concede that those who just want to play dress up and swing sticks have a more valid position than those who want to study medieval armored combat (and have a lot of fun along the way!).
Sorry, I just never got into believeing that the majority is *right* (though they may be able to rule).
I don't know if St. Michael is going to have a pas d'armes this year (I think we're all kind of burned out by last year's extravaganza), but if there's some medieval combat at Pennsic I hope to participate; perhaps we can work something out. I'm always happy to teach. For that matter, you're only in NH; come on down to a practice here.
Thank you for the compliments. While I don't share your interest in pit bulls, I must say I find them handsome and loving dogs. For me, I don't have much interest in pets: My greyounds and my hawks are for hunting, so performance is really my biggest concern.
Yes, falconry is a tremendous committment, but it's also the most rewarding thing I've ever done. Believe me, there's nothing in the whole world like making in to a hawk on the ground who's all puffed up with herself as she stands there clutching a prey you flushed for her.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
Should be is very subjective. Your idea and mine might not click. As long as we can both play and have fun this isn`t a problem. Its only when the views of one try to override the many that I have a problem.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're absolutely right. But what I'm trying to teach and lead people toward is based on medieval models; it gives a validity to what we do by making it a process of study and learning. I would argue that it's almost always more meaningful to do something realistically than to pretend to do it, wouldn't you agree? You're argument seems to be (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) that we should just let everyone have fun. Sadly, the implication of that position is that my way *isn't* fun, and there I don't agree. I think people will have *more* fun my way, except for those who don't want to play a rougher game because they feel they can't do well at it, and I would argue we're much better off without that kind of person.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> My problem is not with danger. I really don`t think some of the people advocating some of these things are activly wishing to see people hurt. Its more a comfort level thing. I am comfortable that the level I hit people isn`t going to result in any signifigant injurys. </font>
What you just said is that your problem lies in concerns that the harder game I advocate will cause injuries; how is this not about danger? Sorry, but I think you're contradicting yourself here.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I am also comfortable that the level I take shots isn`t going to get me any signifigant injurys. I see no reason to raise the bar. Same with grappeling. </font>
I keep giving you the reason for raising the bar: It's more realistic, and it makes our art more "real".
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I do think there is some room for manouvering there, but I don`t want to see it go to a level that can cause injurys, and I think many folks would bring it there.</font>
Neither do I. But we're a *long* way from there!
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I agree and disagree with this. I agree that its just a game. Thats all it is to me and all its likely to remain. If I learn things along the way, all the better. but the bottom line for me is I just want to dress up in armor and hit my "friends" with sticks. </font>
Sorry, but I won't concede that those who just want to play dress up and swing sticks have a more valid position than those who want to study medieval armored combat (and have a lot of fun along the way!).
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I do also agree that we have the opprotunity to take our understanding to levels that the t-shirt and waster crowd never can. That is not a bad thing, but what about the folks who don`t care? What about those who just want to bang? What if they are the majority?</font>
Sorry, I just never got into believeing that the majority is *right* (though they may be able to rule).
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I am still interested in seeing and even participating in some of the things you propose and will probably look for you and yours at war for just that purpose. I am perfectly willing to give you the chance to prove some of my misgivings wrong, and if convinced will gladly admit my error. I just have yet to have that opprotunity, so until then I will continue to have doubts.</font>
I don't know if St. Michael is going to have a pas d'armes this year (I think we're all kind of burned out by last year's extravaganza), but if there's some medieval combat at Pennsic I hope to participate; perhaps we can work something out. I'm always happy to teach. For that matter, you're only in NH; come on down to a practice here.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">BTW, I checked out your website and I must say you definitly have and have had some impressive dogs. While I prefer pit bulls, I have always admired performance bred dogs of any breed and greyhounds are one of my favorites. Beutifull hawk too tho I must add I probably couldn`t tell a good one from a bad one, but she sure looked like a good one to my untrained eye. I had always wanted to take up falconry until I started to look into it. Way too much on my plate to take on that kind of commitement.</font>
Thank you for the compliments. While I don't share your interest in pit bulls, I must say I find them handsome and loving dogs. For me, I don't have much interest in pets: My greyounds and my hawks are for hunting, so performance is really my biggest concern.
Yes, falconry is a tremendous committment, but it's also the most rewarding thing I've ever done. Believe me, there's nothing in the whole world like making in to a hawk on the ground who's all puffed up with herself as she stands there clutching a prey you flushed for her.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
William quote: "I usually won't say anything until about the third repetition, but at some point if the blows feel very solid it's worth discussing this with your opponent or pointing out to them that their armor is beginning to resemble a pile of curly fries. (It happened, ask Richard about that day.) "
Yes, marshaling that bought was one of my more enjoyable moments. I was wondering if Bill was going to have to trash this guy's entire kit before he would take a shot! A little conversation goes a long, long way.
As far as what happens when a decent fighter hits you in the one place where you don't have armour, ask Bill what he did to my left arm one day after he fought a rhino who was wearing a flack jacket.
Yes, marshaling that bought was one of my more enjoyable moments. I was wondering if Bill was going to have to trash this guy's entire kit before he would take a shot! A little conversation goes a long, long way.
As far as what happens when a decent fighter hits you in the one place where you don't have armour, ask Bill what he did to my left arm one day after he fought a rhino who was wearing a flack jacket.
My advice to you is simple: ask your opponents to help you calibrate at practice. I'd preface it with something like: "I'm having a hard time setting my calibration, and I need your help." (This will let them know that it's OK to be honest with you, and flatter them that you "need" them.) Then say, "Whenever you hit me, could you tell me if you thought the shot was one that other people would have taken?" (This relieves them of the burden of calibration-it places the burden on the other people that they've fought.)
A few practices using this technique will do several things to your advantage:
1) It will let you know what is typical of blow acknowledgement among a sampling of fighters.
2) It will increase your reputation as an honorable person.
3) This also will help smooth over any past bad experiences people might have had with your blow acknowledgement.
4) It might also point to specific areas in your gear that are more rhino-prone, such as a heavy, heavily padded helmet that is difficult to move with a sword.
Sure, you can take others advice and only count the hardest blows. That may be more realistic, macho, etc., but it is also likely to get you a reputation as a rhino-hider. Certain fighters like to be hit hard-let that be the exception, not the rule.
------------------
All bleeding eventually stops.
A few practices using this technique will do several things to your advantage:
1) It will let you know what is typical of blow acknowledgement among a sampling of fighters.
2) It will increase your reputation as an honorable person.
3) This also will help smooth over any past bad experiences people might have had with your blow acknowledgement.
4) It might also point to specific areas in your gear that are more rhino-prone, such as a heavy, heavily padded helmet that is difficult to move with a sword.
Sure, you can take others advice and only count the hardest blows. That may be more realistic, macho, etc., but it is also likely to get you a reputation as a rhino-hider. Certain fighters like to be hit hard-let that be the exception, not the rule.
------------------
All bleeding eventually stops.
-
FrauHirsch
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4520
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: San Diego, CA, USA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by William MacCrimmon:
<B>One of hardest things I've found is to talk to an opponent during a tournament about a shot you've just landed. There is a lot of pressure off the field to not whine about shots, and having seen some folks whine when their shots wouldn't break a pane of glass I can understand some that.
I usually won't say anything until about the third repetition, but at some point if the blows feel very solid it's worth discussing this with your opponent or pointing out to them that their armor is beginning to resemble a pile of curly fries.
-William</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, or when you start to crank it up so high you are going to hurt the next person you hit, that is bad. I remember a melee tourney shortly before my husband was knighted (13-14 yrs ago). We all watched him hit this guy 3 successive hits where the final one dented a 10 ga helm. The sound resounded across the field with each shot. My husband stopped, shrugged and walked off the field, then took a walk behind the pavilions. He realized the next blow he threw could hurt someone seriously and it might not be the guy he was cranking up on. That fellow never even blinked or acknowledge any hit at all. He had quite a reputation, but no one would have even guessed anything that blatant.
It is amazing how many fighters shrug off amazingly hard blows from him. 90% of the time it is a cocky "up-and-coming" unbelted who thinks they have gotten very very good and are ready for a belt. He does talk with them afterwards if this happens, and so do some of the other Knights, but it is amazing how many just blow that off too. I nag him to talk more during the fight when it is obvious that he has just creamed someone. He tends not to say anything and assume he'll get in the next shot harder, but that doesn't always happen. Talking is really important and I agree with William that it is very hard to do.
And sometimes it just takes a reminder for someone's brain to acknowledge what just happened. Their brain was just somewhere else when the hit happened and it may take a long time for it to register... or if they wear plate or other heavy armor, maybe it just registered in the wrong place or they didn't hear it. I see this all the time with dented leg armor where people think they get hit below the knee and it is really dented up on the cuise. Or when breastplates that are too long, the hit is above the belt, but they feel it as a hip.
Juliana
<B>One of hardest things I've found is to talk to an opponent during a tournament about a shot you've just landed. There is a lot of pressure off the field to not whine about shots, and having seen some folks whine when their shots wouldn't break a pane of glass I can understand some that.
I usually won't say anything until about the third repetition, but at some point if the blows feel very solid it's worth discussing this with your opponent or pointing out to them that their armor is beginning to resemble a pile of curly fries.
-William</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, or when you start to crank it up so high you are going to hurt the next person you hit, that is bad. I remember a melee tourney shortly before my husband was knighted (13-14 yrs ago). We all watched him hit this guy 3 successive hits where the final one dented a 10 ga helm. The sound resounded across the field with each shot. My husband stopped, shrugged and walked off the field, then took a walk behind the pavilions. He realized the next blow he threw could hurt someone seriously and it might not be the guy he was cranking up on. That fellow never even blinked or acknowledge any hit at all. He had quite a reputation, but no one would have even guessed anything that blatant.
It is amazing how many fighters shrug off amazingly hard blows from him. 90% of the time it is a cocky "up-and-coming" unbelted who thinks they have gotten very very good and are ready for a belt. He does talk with them afterwards if this happens, and so do some of the other Knights, but it is amazing how many just blow that off too. I nag him to talk more during the fight when it is obvious that he has just creamed someone. He tends not to say anything and assume he'll get in the next shot harder, but that doesn't always happen. Talking is really important and I agree with William that it is very hard to do.
And sometimes it just takes a reminder for someone's brain to acknowledge what just happened. Their brain was just somewhere else when the hit happened and it may take a long time for it to register... or if they wear plate or other heavy armor, maybe it just registered in the wrong place or they didn't hear it. I see this all the time with dented leg armor where people think they get hit below the knee and it is really dented up on the cuise. Or when breastplates that are too long, the hit is above the belt, but they feel it as a hip.
Juliana
SyrRhys,
I think mentioning that you belong to a tournament company helped clear things up a little bit for me. I was coming from the assumption that we were discussing the SCA as it was currently played, with the one shot killed and acted out wounds. I stated that I did not believe that increased force levels would not raise the realism of the game as it is currently played.
It sounds to me, that if you are representing a tourney where three blows are considered fight stopping through armour, that would neccesitate a huge increase in power from even the hardest hitting areas.
Are you guys trying to recreate a specific style of tourney, or do you work through a few different formats? do you make a distinction between behourd and war weapons?
I have to admit that my own experience reflects what was mentioned before, that a blow thrown with proper technique at a relaxed level is stronger and faster than light whippy blows, or blows that are trying to be muscled through.
I think mentioning that you belong to a tournament company helped clear things up a little bit for me. I was coming from the assumption that we were discussing the SCA as it was currently played, with the one shot killed and acted out wounds. I stated that I did not believe that increased force levels would not raise the realism of the game as it is currently played.
It sounds to me, that if you are representing a tourney where three blows are considered fight stopping through armour, that would neccesitate a huge increase in power from even the hardest hitting areas.
Are you guys trying to recreate a specific style of tourney, or do you work through a few different formats? do you make a distinction between behourd and war weapons?
I have to admit that my own experience reflects what was mentioned before, that a blow thrown with proper technique at a relaxed level is stronger and faster than light whippy blows, or blows that are trying to be muscled through.
Mutt, Kyle, et al,
I don't want to put words in Rhys mouth (he's doesn't need any help from me *grin*), but when I read his "my way or the high way" -styled jingoism, I feel a great deal of kinship and probably a lot of the same frustration with the "inclusive, fun, hobby" argument that is invariably thrown at him. I get the impression that, as much as anything else, his effort is two-fold: first, to show us a new horizon for which to strive, and second -- and this is perhaps more important -- holding the line at what is an acceptable, entry-level "effort" and "understanding" of the recreative reenactment aspect of our game.
For over 35 years, we've studied, shared, and grown our collective knowledge to a level far beyond freon cans and broomsticks. And while it was once acceptable to wear your belt over your shirt, tuck your jeans into your boots and call it garb; we know too much to continue with the same standard of four decades past. In the same way that this forum is a haven for the armor snobs, Rhys is holding up a similar banner for the way we fight -- and for all I can see, he is no farther off base than the rest of us when we natter on about riveted mail and hand-sewn turnshoes.
This 'sport' of ours is dynamic, and the novices today are far better prepared than when I started. They can buy armor over the internet; there are manuals, and reknown teachers, and even entire "schools" of combat; and now we're starting to even understand the relationship between what we do and what was actually done in period. If these resources were not available today, then I would agree that the cry of "elitist" might be justified; but there is no more excuse for a new fighter -not- have a set of solid fundamentals of rattan combat than there is for that self-same novice to not have a tabard to cover his blue plastic breastplate.
Now, I am a keen proponent of leading by example -- and, by his presence on the field and sponsorship of many past pas d'armes, so is Rhys. The key to his success -- to -our- success -- is to float these 'radical' ideas among today's (and tomorrow's) generation of 'movers and shakers' -- the Sarnacs, Dioluns, Mutts, and Kyles of the world. It is you who will set the bar for novices joining today, and if you are not willing to revise the way you think about fighting the way you do about your armor, it won't be all that long when you will be in Rhys' shoes, railing relentlessly against the same fading light.
With respect,
-cheval-
I don't want to put words in Rhys mouth (he's doesn't need any help from me *grin*), but when I read his "my way or the high way" -styled jingoism, I feel a great deal of kinship and probably a lot of the same frustration with the "inclusive, fun, hobby" argument that is invariably thrown at him. I get the impression that, as much as anything else, his effort is two-fold: first, to show us a new horizon for which to strive, and second -- and this is perhaps more important -- holding the line at what is an acceptable, entry-level "effort" and "understanding" of the recreative reenactment aspect of our game.
For over 35 years, we've studied, shared, and grown our collective knowledge to a level far beyond freon cans and broomsticks. And while it was once acceptable to wear your belt over your shirt, tuck your jeans into your boots and call it garb; we know too much to continue with the same standard of four decades past. In the same way that this forum is a haven for the armor snobs, Rhys is holding up a similar banner for the way we fight -- and for all I can see, he is no farther off base than the rest of us when we natter on about riveted mail and hand-sewn turnshoes.
This 'sport' of ours is dynamic, and the novices today are far better prepared than when I started. They can buy armor over the internet; there are manuals, and reknown teachers, and even entire "schools" of combat; and now we're starting to even understand the relationship between what we do and what was actually done in period. If these resources were not available today, then I would agree that the cry of "elitist" might be justified; but there is no more excuse for a new fighter -not- have a set of solid fundamentals of rattan combat than there is for that self-same novice to not have a tabard to cover his blue plastic breastplate.
Now, I am a keen proponent of leading by example -- and, by his presence on the field and sponsorship of many past pas d'armes, so is Rhys. The key to his success -- to -our- success -- is to float these 'radical' ideas among today's (and tomorrow's) generation of 'movers and shakers' -- the Sarnacs, Dioluns, Mutts, and Kyles of the world. It is you who will set the bar for novices joining today, and if you are not willing to revise the way you think about fighting the way you do about your armor, it won't be all that long when you will be in Rhys' shoes, railing relentlessly against the same fading light.
With respect,
-cheval-