An opportunity for enlightenment

Theoderic · Post by **Theoderic** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:48 pm

Cyrano- I thought I had made the point that I wasn't aiming this at Sir Leo, but perhaps that wasn't clear enough, so here it is in another fashion: I have heard this a lot, from many folks from many fighting cultures.... Sir Leo simply stated it as concisely as I've heard it put, and still convey the feeling. I, too, hope to cross swords with him someday if for no other reason than to be in the presence of his awesome kit.

Well said. It is quite a common occurrence for people to say one thing and then do the opposite. I appreciate your time to be concise in this matter.

A man in a wheelchair awaited a fight at an event long ago. People were hesitant to fight this man. When a few did they were tentative. Then a knight fought this man and accidentally knocked him from his wheelchair. The knight did not apologize but did offer a hand. After a fierce fight, and losing an arm, the knight bested the man in the wheel chair. The man in the wheel chair said "thank you sir knight for the fight." The knight looked perplexed, "Why are you thanking me? You are dressed in armor and came here to fight. All I did was offer my best in respect of your prowess."

The greatest honor in a fight is to fight hard and show your respect to your opponent by giving them the best that you have. In practice it is the same, to take the time to learn what is being taught and train hard. This shows those that take the time to train others that their efforts are appreciated.

[/quote]

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:00 pm

I do not. I take the field for love of combat. The outcome is not nearly so important to me as is giving a good fight to my opponent.

Do not make the mistake of setting up a false dichotomy of seeking victory being mutually exclusive of giving a good fight to your opponent.

I am simply pointing out that we don't take to the field to be losers. We strive for victory.

Steve

Count Johnathan · Post by **Count Johnathan** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:35 pm

Skutai wrote:How about instead of having us both fight from the ground my opponent simply allows me to stay standing?

*cough* *counted blows* *cough*

That is already and has always been an option but that's not up to you, that is up to your opponent.

benz72 · Post by **benz72** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:49 pm

Eirik wrote:
benz72 wrote:I've heard something similar to this as well and have always wondered why that didn't just end the fight. Clearly the spearman has bested the swordsman in this instance. It HAS ceased to become a fight. Similarly, if the swordsman manages to grasp the spear in his off hand and close then the spearman has lost the fight, being bested by the swordsman. What is the advantage of continuing to a 'kill' once the outcome is set? Why do we insist on ending a fight with a 'death' instead of recognizing the skill of our opponent and yielding an untenable position? To return to the chess example, we do not capture the king, merely place him in checkmate and declare victory.

Because I have won this battle more than once by defending well enough to frustrate "the spearman" into doing something stupid and losing for their troubles. This is why I do not yield. You have bested me when you intentionally defeat my defenses, and land a blow to a critically disabling area, not before.

Is that not what he has already done by taking a leg? It seems difficult to argue that one is not bested at that point. Standing back and waiting for you to loose feeling in your legs seems oddly unsatisfying, but no more patient than the unyielding legged swordsman trutling up to tire his attacker.

Eirik · Post by **Eirik** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:53 pm

Steve -SoFC- wrote:Do not make the mistake of setting up a false dichotomy of seeking victory being mutually exclusive of giving a good fight to your opponent.

I am simply pointing out that we don't take to the field to be losers. We strive for victory.

Steve

There is no dichotomy on my part, Steve. I don't fight to win, I fight to have fun. This is a pretty simple philosophy, and not likely to be the only time you hear that put forth.

You've posted on this forum that you have issues because you're not winning. You seem to view this as a personal failure. To you, winning and giving a good fight are one and the same. Perhaps therin lies the dichotomy?

I fight for the joy of combat, period. To me, wins and losses are not the point of taking the field... getting to put on armour and fight is. I couldn't tell you whether I won or lost more fights in the last several practices I've been to... but I'll wager there are those I fight with who keep close count. It's not uncommon to hear them say "I suck", even though they fought very well and only lost after a good fight.

I hope this makes sense, but if not, perhaps as you grow as a fighter you can gain some perspective on fighting that is more than a mere Win/Loss record.

You going to Thing in the Woods? I'd be more than happy to talk more in person

Eirik · Post by **Eirik** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:04 pm

benz72 wrote:Is that not what he has already done by taking a leg? It seems difficult to argue that one is not bested at that point. Standing back and waiting for you to loose feeling in your legs seems oddly unsatisfying, but no more patient than the unyielding legged swordsman trutling up to tire his attacker.

Not in the game I play. Legs do not equal kills. YMMV.

Do you honestly know someone who would disengage and just let a fighter sit on his knees until he cramped up and yeilded? No fighter I have ever known in the 20 some-odd years I've been in the SCA would do such a dastardly thing... whereas most of the fighters I know would continue fighting from their knees in an effort to win.

:roll:

Eirik · Post by **Eirik** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:09 pm

Cyrano wrote:A man in a wheelchair awaited a fight at an event long ago. People were hesitant to fight this man. When a few did they were tentative. Then a knight fought this man and accidentally knocked him from his wheelchair. The knight did not apologize but did offer a hand. After a fierce fight, and losing an arm, the knight bested the man in the wheel chair. The man in the wheel chair said "thank you sir knight for the fight." The knight looked perplexed, "Why are you thanking me? You are dressed in armor and came here to fight. All I did was offer my best in respect of your prowess."

The greatest honor in a fight is to fight hard and show your respect to your opponent by giving them the best that you have. In practice it is the same, to take the time to learn what is being taught and train hard. This shows those that take the time to train others that their efforts are appreciated.

I was once paid a similar compliment by Sir Kytte, who thanked me for fighting her like I fought everyone else, and not like she was a girl.

I consider it one of the highest compliments I've ever been paid.

Thanks, Cyrano... great story!

benz72 · Post by **benz72** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:17 pm

Eirik wrote:
benz72 wrote:Is that not what he has already done by taking a leg? It seems difficult to argue that one is not bested at that point. Standing back and waiting for you to loose feeling in your legs seems oddly unsatisfying, but no more patient than the unyielding legged swordsman trutling up to tire his attacker.

Not in the game I play. Legs do not equal kills. YMMV.

Do you honestly know someone who would disengage and just let a fighter sit on his knees until he cramped up and yeilded? No fighter I have ever known in the 20 some-odd years I've been in the SCA would do such a dastardly thing... whereas most of the fighters I know would continue fighting from their knees in an effort to win.

I don't, and only mentioned it to point out that if waiting for an opponent to fail is an acceptable method of victory, the odds favor the patient spearman over the patient legged swordsman. In that same vein, making a spearman knock the legged swordsman around from a distance until the swordsman misses a block seems pretty futile. It seems to make more sense to me to call it a victory and move on to a more fun fight for both (which I believe was a reason you gave for fighting in the first place).

Eirik · Post by **Eirik** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:24 pm

benz72 wrote:I don't, and only mentioned it to point out that if waiting for an opponent to fail is an acceptable method of victory, the odds favor the patient spearman over the patient legged swordsman. In that same vein, making a spearman knock the legged swordsman around from a distance until the swordsman misses a block seems pretty futile. It seems to make more sense to me to call it a victory and move on to a more fun fight for both (which I believe was a reason you gave for fighting in the first place).

Isn't that what fighting is all about... Waiting for your opponent to fail so you can land a shot?

I did have fun. LOADS of it as I forced the guy to move in closer and closer until I could strike. It was a great tactical fight as he tried to pull me forward out of position so he could land a kill, and I countered.

YMMV.

By all means, if you're legged by a spearman, go ahead and yield if you feel beaten. I'm simply pointing out that not everyone feels defeated at the loss of a leg.

benz72 · Post by **benz72** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:06 pm

Eirik wrote:
benz72 wrote:I don't, and only mentioned it to point out that if waiting for an opponent to fail is an acceptable method of victory, the odds favor the patient spearman over the patient legged swordsman. In that same vein, making a spearman knock the legged swordsman around from a distance until the swordsman misses a block seems pretty futile. It seems to make more sense to me to call it a victory and move on to a more fun fight for both (which I believe was a reason you gave for fighting in the first place).

Isn't that what fighting is all about... Waiting for your opponent to fail so you can land a shot?

I did have fun. LOADS of it as I forced the guy to move in closer and closer until I could strike. It was a great tactical fight as he tried to pull me forward out of position so he could land a kill, and I countered.

YMMV.

By all means, if you're legged by a spearman, go ahead and yield if you feel beaten. I'm simply pointing out that not everyone feels defeated at the loss of a leg.

May I ask you how you forced him to move closer? He should have had a mobility advantage.

St. George · Post by **St. George** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:14 pm

Whenever this conversation comes up, the story of Harrisson Bergeron comes to mind.

Even with that aside, I am confused by people who talk about the love of the fight, but do not consider winning as part of the game. Maybe I just don't enjoy going out and swinging my sword around- if I did I guess I could just do pell work all day.

Taking arms, legs, etc is simply part of the fight. Two people enter the field, and only one will emerge as victorious. At the beginning of the fight, they each have their own series of advantages and disadvantages over each other, shield shape/size, fighting style, strength, armor quality, experience, health, etc etc. In order to get passed some of these "advantages" or in order to overcome one's own disadvantage, a fighter could and should use every tool at their disposal (cheating is not a tool). If I think an opponent is in poor shape, I can decide to turtle up and outlast him or her. If they move too fast, I can shut that down by taking a limb or two. The result, i.e., one person winning, will always be the case as we don't really have ties (double kills are usually re-fought), and for me at least, the playing of the game, taking of limbs, etc is simply part of the fight as a whole, and to re-set the so called "evenness" of the fight during the middle of it by taking their own limb or whatever, is not playing the game, but altering it fundamentally. On the flipside, should I hamper or hinder myself against every opponent who I feel is not as good/fast/whatever as I am? Should I have a heavy sword for fighting slow fighters?

Consider this: why on earth would I leg someone who fights better than me from their knees if I was required to or felt socially pressured into legging myself whenever I legged them? In tournament, why would I ever even want to swing at their legs?

The concept of matching wounds, although on the outset seems representative of Victorian Chivalric ideals does not live up to them for me. As a concept, taking ones own limbs in the course of a fight doesn't
create a better fight for me or uphold what some of us are ostensibly attempting to do.

g-

Ulrich · Post by **Ulrich** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:18 pm

Erik,

You've got a good head on your shoulders, and a good Knight. Talk to him, listen to what he says on this subject, you're doing well on your come back, you have the right of it and you're a joy to watch.

Come by my pavilion at Thing in the Woods, we'll sit and chat, I'll make sure I have a cold beverage for you.

Regards,
Ulrich

Eirik · Post by **Eirik** » Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:59 pm

Ulrich wrote:Erik,

You've got a good head on your shoulders, and a good Knight. Talk to him, listen to what he says on this subject, you're doing well on your come back, you have the right of it and you're a joy to watch.

Come by my pavilion at Thing in the Woods, we'll sit and chat, I'll make sure I have a cold beverage for you.

Regards,
Ulrich

Thank you, Sir Ulrich, for your kind words. I have mentioned this in passing to my Knight, but the proper words failed me I'm afraid, and I did not adequately convey my thoughts. I am better prepared now, and will follow your advice.

I look forward to seeing you at the Thing!

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:28 pm

There is no dichotomy on my part, Steve. I don't fight to win, I fight to have fun. This is a pretty simple philosophy, and not likely to be the only time you hear that put forth.

I'm afraid I can't grok the concept.

To me, fun is sitting around on my ass doing nothing much of anything, except maybe playing video games.

Going to school, going to work, working out, suiting up in armour, pretty much all of those things are just a bunch of work, as far as I'm concerned. I only bother to put for the effort for the benefits that I hope to see from doing it.

In fact, looking back on my life I can't think of any major undertaking that I've ever done that was fun. The fun is in the reward - the payback for the hard work.

You've posted on this forum that you have issues because you're not winning. You seem to view this as a personal failure.

Absolutely. It demonstrates that I am not much of a martial artist in this martial art.

To you, winning and giving a good fight are one and the same. Perhaps therin lies the dichotomy?

You misunderstand me. I do not think that winning and giving a good fight are one and the same. It is entirely possible to give a good fight and lose.

Your tone in your initial response to me, when you said, "But I do strongly suspect this mentality is what drives the changes I see." suggested to me that you felt that being motivated to win was detrimental to being motivated to give a good fight. I am simply saying that being motivated to win is not mutually exclusive with giving a good fight. I'm motivated to win, and I give the best, most honorable fight I can, every time. I simply seldom win, because my skills aren't very good.

I fight for the joy of combat, period. To me, wins and losses are not the point of taking the field... getting to put on armour and fight is. I couldn't tell you whether I won or lost more fights in the last several practices I've been to... but I'll wager there are those I fight with who keep close count. It's not uncommon to hear them say "I suck", even though they fought very well and only lost after a good fight.

I hope this makes sense, but if not, perhaps as you grow as a fighter you can gain some perspective on fighting that is more than a mere Win/Loss record.

Like I said, I can't grok this motivation. I can't think of any serious endeavor in life that I have undertaken because it was fun or joyful. Moreover, activities that I have undertaken but not been successful at I quit doing, because it is disheartening to realize that I am wasting my time doing them without producing anything of merit for the effort and trouble.

I guess part of the issue is that I have precious little time in life to invest in things that I am good at. Why squander it at things I suck at when I could be using it at things I'm good at, or, if all else fails, just relaxing?

I cannot fathom anyone taking the field being completely indifferent to winning or losing. This would be like going to work indifferent to whether or not I get paid.

You going to Thing in the Woods? I'd be more than happy to talk more in person

It's close by (2 hours), let me check with the wife.

Steve

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:36 am

Something else dawned on me last night while thinking about this.

What is your goal when you fight? One of the states goals was to "give a good fight to your opponent".

What does this mean? Of one of the things it means is playing by the rules and behaving as an honorable person. But I think it also means giving your best effort to the fight.

Your best effort at what? At trying to land a good blow - to win!

You may be fighting for fun. But if you are giving your best effort to your opponent, you are also fighting to win. And conversely, if you aren't fighting to win, then you aren't giving your best effort to your opponent.

Steve

Skutai · Post by **Skutai** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:48 am

Steve -SoFC- wrote:Something else dawned on me last night while thinking about this.

What is your goal when you fight? One of the states goals was to "give a good fight to your opponent".

I am one of those that is, overall, indifferent to the result of the contest.

When I take the field I'm doing it to feel a piece of what it must have felt for my ancestors. I also go for the adrenaline rush of walking into a line of fighters, all of whom want to bash me in the head. I enjoy tactics, and seeing them played out. I like to test myself against others, to see how my skills have progressed - yet I do not rank a win as a positive or a loss as a negative. They're just indicators of my current state.

Fighting is fun, but I wouldn't call "fun" why I participate. It would be more appropriate to use the words "satisfied" or "fulfilled". I feel a deep, compelling need to fight. I do not feel a deep, compelling need to win.

DukeAvery · Post by **DukeAvery** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:14 am

One of my recent sca list fights has caused me to rethink my giving up of my shield when I unintentionally arm my opponent, which in the past has been my consistent custom. One of my opponents, who is a friend, actually was angry with me for dropping my shield. For those of sufficient sca fighting rank I shall ask if they have a preference as to whether I drop my shield.

One of my influences has been our discussions here that argue strongly that people may hold opposing yet cogent chivalric views, especially in a past time or sport level activity.

Regards

Avery

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:20 am

I am one of those that is, overall, indifferent to the result of the contest.

I can see how you could be indifferent to the result of the contest, but if you are giving your best fight to your opponent, then you must be trying to win, whether winning is important to you personally or not.

If you are not trying to best your opponent then you are not giving your opponent your best fight.

Steve

benz72 · Post by **benz72** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:24 am

Steve -SoFC- wrote:Something else dawned on me last night while thinking about this.

What is your goal when you fight? One of the states goals was to "give a good fight to your opponent".

What does this mean? Of one of the things it means is playing by the rules and behaving as an honorable person. But I think it also means giving your best effort to the fight.

Your best effort at what? At trying to land a good blow - to win!

You may be fighting for fun. But if you are giving your best effort to your opponent, you are also fighting to win. And conversely, if you aren't fighting to win, then you aren't giving your best effort to your opponent.

Steve

I would agree with your statement, but need to caveat it first with something like:
Don't be a poopiehead to newbs, let them win a few by not giving them your A game, and don't 'tourney swing' at them if you have a variable intensity.

Skutai · Post by **Skutai** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:33 am

Steve -SoFC- wrote:I can see how you could be indifferent to the result of the contest, but if you are giving your best fight to your opponent, then you must be trying to win, whether winning is important to you personally or not.

If you are not trying to best your opponent then you are not giving your opponent your best fight.

Your logic is precise, but I don't believe the question can be entirely resolved by logic. I may be trying to defeat my opponent (and I certainly don't intend to lose) but whether I win or not is of low value. The "win" is given by my opponent's submission through proper recognition of local calibration, a reaction to pain, or a response to feelings of shame.

I can intend to be victorious, achieve my goals, lose, and still "win."

In the sense that you describe, yes, we are all out there to compel an opponent to submit or yield. But there is so much more to it that the actual act of rattan club striking armored head, causing a participant to fall down, shrinks to insignificance.

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:00 am

In the sense that you describe, yes, we are all out there to compel an opponent to submit or yield.

That was all I was trying to say by saying, "We all fight to win".

Everyone who takes to the field does so with the intent of besting their opponent in honorable combat*, whether or not winning is actually important to them or not.

Steve

* Obviously if you are in a training situation you may not actually be fighting with the intent to best your student.

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:04 am

I can intend to be victorious, achieve my goals, lose, and still "win."

I would say that you can intend to be victorious, achieve your goals, lose, and still be satisfied with your effort. But winning in a combat context has a very specific meaning - it means you bested your opponent - you were "victorious".

I personally find little satisfaction in consistently failing at an endeavor, regardless of the intensity and sincerity of my effort. This would be deriving pleasure from futility, and I just can't get to that place in my mind.

Steve

Skutai · Post by **Skutai** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:26 am

Steve -SoFC- wrote:
I can intend to be victorious, achieve my goals, lose, and still "win."

I would say that you can intend to be victorious, achieve your goals, lose, and still be satisfied with your effort. But winning in a combat context has a very specific meaning - it means you bested your opponent - you were "victorious".

I personally find little satisfaction in consistently failing at an endeavor, regardless of the intensity and sincerity of my effort. This would be deriving pleasure from futility, and I just can't get to that place in my mind.

Steve

It all depends on how you define the endeavor. When success is granted by another, you are depending on others to give you happiness. I simply choose to define my own victory conditions.

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:39 am

It all depends on how you define the endeavor. When success is granted by another, you are depending on others to give you happiness. I simply choose to define my own victory conditions.

I would say that you can define your own satisfaction conditions, but you cannot re-define what it means to best your opponent in honorable combat.

Steve

Kilkenny · Post by **Kilkenny** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:56 am

Steve -SoFC- wrote:
It all depends on how you define the endeavor. When success is granted by another, you are depending on others to give you happiness. I simply choose to define my own victory conditions.

I would say that you can define your own satisfaction conditions, but you cannot re-define what it means to best your opponent in honorable combat.

Steve

yeah. But you can decide what constitutes "victory" for you.

Let each person do that for themselves rather than insisting that they all conform to your definition

Skutai · Post by **Skutai** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:18 pm

Steve -SoFC- wrote:I would say that you can define your own satisfaction conditions, but you cannot re-define what it means to best your opponent in honorable combat.

I'm pretty sure I can, since "best" and "bested" are entirely subjective. If I give a fight at the top of my ability and lose to someone that fights in a shameful manner, I wouldn't feel "bested". I could in fact gain renown by fighting with honor when facing a disgraceful situation. I could gain skill in the attempt at victory, and find the limits of my endurance. And so forth.

I feel you're mentally stuck on a particular perspective, and there is little point in continuing the conversation. I can't explain it any more clearly than I already have.

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:41 pm

yeah. But you can decide what constitutes "victory" for you.

No, you can only decide what constitutes satisfaction for you. You cannot, for example, simply walk out onto the field, declare "victory", and walk off the field. Victory in a martial context has a very definite connotation. It is not up to each individual to define.

This is like saying it is up to each race car driver to decide whether or not they won the race.

Steve

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:45 pm

Skutai wrote:
Steve -SoFC- wrote:I would say that you can define your own satisfaction conditions, but you cannot re-define what it means to best your opponent in honorable combat.

I'm pretty sure I can, since "best" and "bested" are entirely subjective. If I give a fight at the top of my ability and lose to someone that fights in a shameful manner, I wouldn't feel "bested". I could in fact gain renown by fighting with honor when facing a disgraceful situation. I could gain skill in the attempt at victory, and find the limits of my endurance. And so forth.

You'll note that I specifically said "best your component in honorable combat."

Besting your opponent in honorable combat is subjective, in that we all have to decide whether blows we receive are good or not.

But I contend that besting your opponent in honorable combat means you made your opponent call a good blow before they were able to make you do so. So from that stance it's not subjective at all. You either won the bout or you did not.

Steve