The Grand Limitation

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:32 pm

The Grand Limitation

Iâ€™ve been thinking about this a lot. In contests like â€œAs Real Men Foughtâ€

Dmitriy · Post by **Dmitriy** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:51 pm

I can't help but feel that I am at least partially the reason for this thought, Asbjorn (for those who weren't there, in one of my fights I made a rather unfortunate thrust to the side of my opponent's helmet, the force of which, increased by his stepping into the blow, sent the worthy combatant to his knees and caused no small deal of concern. He was fine, and the fight continued).

I appreciate your concern and the justification for your proposal; however, I don't think it's a good idea. Truth is, sh*t happens. As you pointed out yourself, armour gaps -- and my opponent cannot be held responsible if my elbow cop slipped, for example. I think it is best instead to foster a culture of being nice to each other. One of the (period) ways to do this is to introduce a Grand Marshall, someone with unquestionable experience and authority, who has the power to stop a fight -- "Good gentles, you have done enough." If someone is being a jerk, he can be made to leave the tournament -- but the less rules, especially such limiting ones, the better.

In the specific case of my fight, while I felt truly bad about the discomfort I caused, I would have found it most unjust if I was thus disqualified from the rest of the tournament. I would venture many a combatant feel the same. We all feel bad when we cause injury -- but in the end, each of us is responsible for him/herself.

-Dmitriy Shelomin

jester · Post by **jester** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:55 pm

It's a good observation, but I think the rules are getting away from the period intent. We aren't trying to determine a clear cut winner. We are demonstrating our skill, courage, and nobility in the exercise of arms.

It doesn't matter who wins (this isn't a crown tournament).

Prince Of Darkmoor · Post by **Prince Of Darkmoor** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:07 pm

Well said Dmitriy. I totally agree.

Zafir al-Th'ib · Post by **Zafir al-Th'ib** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:11 pm

I tend to agree with Jester. Rules like the above only get in the way of honorable actions. If I have hurt my opponent and I feel the correct thing to do would be to step down, I should be allowed the chance to do so, not have the choice made for me. If someone is acting like a brute, there are other ways of dealing with the situation.

I do like your ideas about encouraging period weapon styles and the elimination of two-stickers, however. Carry on!

Stoffel · Post by **Stoffel** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:03 pm

I disagree. When I go out and fight in my full plate, against someone wearing almost no armour, I dont think I should have to be put at a greater disadvantage because I have to watch out for hurting him, as well as trying to finish the fight. I dont see why, if I hit someone with no upper arm protection and it hurts him, that I should be put out of the tourney because of it. If we went by armour as worn standards, it would eliminate alot of those problems. Those with little or no armour wouldnt be hit as hard because it would be easier to kill them, those with lots of armour are going to have an advantage. Just like it was in the middle ages. I think we need to stop being so PC about it, and stop worrying about someone that cant afford or doenst want to wear real armour. I was a poor highschool student once, with no job and poor parents, and within a month of joining the sca, had managed to produce at least presentable plate or velvet covered plastic armour.

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:05 pm

First let me say that this has nothing to do with anything that occurred in any of the Historic Combat series. It actually has more to do with the unfortunate tone I've seen in more than one regular SCA event.

Everyone knows there are people who want to win at any cost. As long as we keep ourselves under control, I don't feel that any of the period combat I've played in the past year has been any more dangerous than typical SCA combat (and since no one was fighting from their knees, it probably was better for our joints

). I've had a lot of interest in these particular combats. My worry is that someone runs "As Real Men Fought" without a judge as good as Murdoch, or someone just really wants to win a tourney and goes too far. Sure he'd be caught after the second or third time of hurting someone, but I don't want it someone to benefit from doing it the first time. The problem is judging intention and an SCA culture that at times isn't willing to call anyone on anything.

I know its a departure, and a possible slippery slope, but what happens when "As Real Men Fought" isn't fought between 20 odd folks who care more about medieval combat and their opponents safety than winning?

As much as I love medieval combat I don't want to permanently injure anyone, nor do I think anyone on this board would want too, but I've run into combatants that wouldn't think twice about it if it won them a tourney. I want even the jerk to have to think twice (if I hurt him I'll lose).

The other thing is I hope by using a rule like this, we can avoid having a bunch of little rules that outlaw this move or that because itâ€™s too dangerous. Anyone whose taken Bob's Fiore class knows there are some parts of medieval combat that just can't be practiced because someone would get hurt. I'm hoping by using this I encourage folks to use the move that strips their opponentâ€™s weapon, not the one that turns the weapon into a leaver against a joint.

Asbjorn

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:22 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Stoffel:
I disagree. When I go out and fight in my full plate, against someone wearing almost no armour, I dont think I should have to be put at a greater disadvantage because I have to watch out for hurting him, as well as trying to finish the fight. I dont see why, if I hit someone with no upper arm protection and it hurts him, that I should be put out of the tourney because of it. If we went by armour as worn standards, it would eliminate alot of those problems. Those with little or no armour wouldnt be hit as hard because it would be easier to kill them, those with lots of armour are going to have an advantage. Just like it was in the middle ages. I think we need to stop being so PC about it, and stop worrying about someone that cant afford or doenst want to wear real armour. I was a poor highschool student once, with no job and poor parents, and within a month of joining the sca, had managed to produce at least presentable plate or velvet covered plastic armour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess my intention wasn't clear enough, I'm talking about deblilating, I can't continue because you just dislocated my shoulder, broke my arm, knocked unconsious etc... not just standard bruising.

Almost every time Iâ€™ve fought with rules like As Real Men Fought (Company of St Michaels has been using similar rules for a while), Iâ€™ve seen a moment where someone, if they really knew what they were doing, could have done something real mean, joint breaking arm bars or weapons locks. I donâ€™t think we want to encourage that in tourney. Right now you can win, and sometimes win easier by doing just that, it worries me.

Asbjorn

Stoffel · Post by **Stoffel** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 7:03 pm

Agreed, completely. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Personally, I think there is a certain level of danger in what we do that cannot be avoided. You choose to take those risks when you take the field. Personally I dont want to hurt anyone, but part of the fun of it to me is the potential danger. Agreed that alot of other people dont view it the same as me, and I dont intentionally try and hurt people. I would never want to have something permanantly broken on me, but I guess you could call me one of those people that think a big scar across the face is cool. This isnt in the realm of what the sca can provide, or should provide though.

I dont mind things like getting my shoulder dislocated or another broken finger. I've had a pitch fork prong stuck through my stomach, I've had a shard of ply wood through my cheek, and I've probably had too many hits in the head that make me think that stuff like that is an adrinaline rush. call me crazy...cause I am.

Jareth · Post by **Jareth** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 7:07 pm

This rule still wouldn't effect the people who would sneak into their compeditor's tents and kill their entire household in their sleep.

"Oh, look! I'm the only fighter who showed up. Guess I win the tourney..."

Maybe we need a rule that says that if anyone loses for any reason at any time, both compeditors are eliminated.

And yes, I'm being facetious. No rule will ever make SCA fighting 100% safe. No rule will ever keep some people from getting hurt. No rule will keep some people from being jerks.

Right now we have a method for limiting the 'jerk' factor that works pretty well: Creating a climate in which personal honor is admired and aspired to.

Why try fixing something what ain't broke?

- Jareth

Captain Jamie · Post by **Captain Jamie** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 7:57 pm

Jareth that climate breaks down pretty easily when you add more people and especially if you have no way to adequately censure wrong doers much less those that merely have different ideas about what is important.
At one time most of the SCA enjoyed the same relaxed atmosphere that prevails at pas' etc. Then somebody got competitive about things and upped the ante. The ability to take such people to task for having a different view of fighting is limited.
Right now the activity is limited and I suspect that major competitive players steer clear of a format where prowess alone might not win them the day, as for example happens when a gallery of Noble ladies pick men-at arms to reward for exhibiting chivalric traits. If that changes and the Pas format becomes the norm you will end up with rotten eggs. It is better to start with a mechanism for removal than to tack one on later to correct behavior that has already taken root.

------------------
Captain Jamie-a marvellous valorous gentleman, that is certain
Failure is the price of knowledge

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 11:44 pm

I've had my shoulder dislocated (once) by a fellow that ran into me. He was much smaller (50-70pounds smaller). Doodoo happens. Should he be disqualified by that? Nope.

Edwin · Post by **Edwin** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:50 am

Accidents happen.

Especially when there's any kind of body-to-body contact. Take all the problems of taking a bad step, and double the amount of weight behind that bad step....

In my judo class, we accept that accidents happen. They might lead to sitting out for a day (the guy injured, the other guy needs to keep training). Or to rehabiliation after corrective surgery.

Deliberate injuries should required the inflicting person to sit out though. Perhaps revocation of fighting privileges for X time.

Jean Richard Malcolmson · Fri Aug 23, 2002 9:52 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Captain Jamie:

Right now the activity is limited and I suspect that major competitive players steer clear of a format where prowess alone might not win them the day, as for example happens when a gallery of Noble ladies pick men-at arms to reward for exhibiting chivalric traits. If that changes and the Pas format becomes the norm you will end up with rotten eggs. It is better to start with a mechanism for removal than to tack one on later to correct behavior that has already taken root.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Captain Jamie,

I'm certain that I must have misunderstood what you meant here. It appears to me that you are implying that competitive players with prowess do not typically exhibit chivalric traits. Could you please clarify your comment so that I better understand your meaning?

Regards,
Jean Richard

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 10:43 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Edwin:
Accidents happen.

Especially when there's any kind of body-to-body contact. Take all the problems of taking a bad step, and double the amount of weight behind that bad step....

In my judo class, we accept that accidents happen. They might lead to sitting out for a day (the guy injured, the other guy needs to keep training). Or to rehabiliation after corrective surgery.

Deliberate injuries should required the inflicting person to sit out though. Perhaps revocation of fighting privileges for X time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because this format is so new, I think itâ€™s hard to tell when an action is deliberate, accidental, or the fault of the person who was injured.

Think about it, we've been doing SCA sport fighting for 35 years, and itâ€™s still hard to get an outside observer to tell whether someone is cheating or not. Itâ€™s even harder to get the opponent to call the other person on playing dirty (nobody wants to be seen as a whiner).

What a rule like this does is puts the safety of your opponent in your hands. The rules give you a lot more options; I just want folks to think about an option before they use it. It also takes the onus off the injured party for guessing intention, or trying to figure out what just happened while they are in probably a lot of pain.

Also, we ran a lot of fighting at Pennsic, and while we did have to bandage a cut, I'm not aware of anyone who stepped out due to injury. I'm hoping this would be a rule that would be infrequently used. If it had to be used frequently, something else may need to be changed.

Asbjorn

schreiber · Post by **schreiber** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:47 pm

I have a friend who doesn't fight anymore, largely out of the desire to not get hurt.

I have another friend who may not be fighting very long, since he has a baby on the way and no health insurance.

I have a wife who spent 3 hours every night for a week before Pennsic making my new gambeson, because she likes the fact that I have a modicum of testosterone.

It would be nice if I could keep my friends fighting, but for Pete's sake, don't fix it so that I stop turning on my wife.

The SCA was started by hippies. The only rule is "be nice". I'm the farthest thing from a hippie, but I like that being the only rule.

Maybe we could find a way to enforce that rule instead of making new ones. I personally don't mind the idea that I could get hurt, and I don't think any new rules are going to change that possibility.

HELMUT

Dmitriy · Post by **Dmitriy** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:49 pm

Actually, I did some more thinking about it, and as long as the rule is limited to truly debilitating injuries -- broken limbs and such, not something like a cracked rib -- I'd agree to it.

Dmitriy · Post by **Dmitriy** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:03 pm

Helmut --
You reminded me of something. I came back from Pennsic, and my boss asked me how my vacation went. Grinning, I pulled off my shirt to reveal my (rather horrid-looking) mail-shaped bruises. He just sighed and said, "Couldn't you do something slightly more genteel? Like chess?"

Edit -- fixed spelling

[This message has been edited by Dmitriy (edited 08-23-2002).]

Jareth · Post by **Jareth** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:21 pm

I still don't understand...Why go through so much effort to sew distrust?

All SCA combat has the potential to cause injury, with or without intent. What you are talking about is *assuming* intent and penalizing the uninjured combatant without even the *possibility* of proving innocence.

If you want to be able to pull people from the list for unsportsmanlike behaviour, then make that the rule.

In every other aspect of SCA combat, we rely on the honor of our opponent and the judgement of the fighters involved. I don't see any reason to change this.

One thing I find interesting is that no one has pointed out that causing debilitating injuries on purpose is a crime. It's not a tournament issue, it's a *legal* issue. If the injured party feels that they received a serious injury and that the injury was caused with intent, they should persue legal recourse. I'd imagine the threat of incarceration or financial ruin would be a better way of limiting evil-hearted bastiches from pursuiing victory at any cost.

- Jareth

Cet · Post by **Cet** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 4:44 pm

How about disallowing those techniques intended to create debilitating injuries i.e. joint breaking arm bars and weapon locks? I think that qualified marshals will be able to recognize when such techniques are applied. debilitating injuries are still a possibility but, as long as they are the result of accidents, I think they have to be accepted.

Prince Of Darkmoor · Post by **Prince Of Darkmoor** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:10 pm

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of recreating historical combat? Medieval combat was all about hurting, maiming, or killing your opponent or at the very least incapacitating them with arm locks/disarms/throws.

If you water this good thing down too much, it'll quickly turn into just another SCA tourney.

With respect,

[This message has been edited by Prince Of Darkmoor (edited 08-23-2002).]

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 6:05 pm

First let me say I'm not picking on you Cet, but you just cogently summarized many of the objections I've heard.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Cet:
How about disallowing those techniques intended to create debilitating injuries i.e. joint breaking arm bars and weapon locks? I think that qualified marshals will be able to recognize when such techniques are applied. debilitating injuries are still a possibility but, as long as they are the result of accidents, I think they have to be accepted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The essential problem is that you have to come up with what can be a huge list of allowed versus disallowed techniques. Plus there are a lot of moves the look and feel like they are going to be something mean but can option into something that isn't nearly as bad. At a Fiore seminar I watched Bob Charron do set up moves that could lead into a lock, or into a disarm, or even a throw... I wouldn't want to judge what move is being optioned into.

Plus to quote Rhys, its not about techniques its about strategy. Even something as simple as a push at a bad time can mess some up pretty badly. I don't care what techniques you use, as long as they don't end up with something nasty occurring like a broken bone or dislocated shoulder.

This rule makes it simpler, no list of banned techniques, no debate about whether someone meant to hurt the other person. If something goes really wrong, you are both out. We can and will analyze the details later, because the tourney must go on.

The other issue is qualified marshals. Who's qualified? This is a wide-open format with lots of growing up to do. The more I marshaled the Plate and Mail Tourney and watched Murdoch handle As real Men fought, the more I realized that there are so many more options out there for us to explore, but also that we need to be careful how we explore them, especially since we are inviting everyone who wants to play to the party. We haven't even touched the potential combat approaches that could be used. Who is really qualified to be any thing other than a line (you just stepped out and have lost) or basic safety marshal (Milord your helm just popped off, you may want to stop for a moment)? Until we get some sort of deep knowledge pool the contestants are our best judges, but we need to have someway to keep things in line so folks don't allow self-interest to come to the front.

Do your best throws, deliver your hardest blows, strip weapons and beat your opponents down with them. Just don't hurt someone so bad they can't fight again.

Asbjorn

[This message has been edited by Asbjorn Johansen (edited 08-23-2002).]

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 6:34 pm

[This message has been edited by Asbjorn Johansen (edited 08-24-2002).]

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 6:37 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Prince Of Darkmoor:
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of recreating historical combat? Medieval combat was all about hurting, maiming, or killing your opponent or at the very least incapacitating them with arm locks/disarms/throws.

If you water this good thing down too much, it'll quickly turn into just another SCA tourney.

With respect,

[This message has been edited by Prince Of Darkmoor (edited 08-23-2002).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not picking on you Clay (like I could), but like Cet you've done a good job at stating a common objection (I'm debating this on the Tourney Company list as well).

Medieval Tournament combat (which is what I'm trying to recreate) was about demonstrating prowess. They had skilled judges that tried to recognize when things were going to far. Many accounts end without a clear victor, just a judge shouting, "you have done enough". We just don't have the depth of skill to recreate that yet, but we do have is a culture of responsibility in the SCA, I'm trying to harness that. In SCA sport combat you take the responsibility of telling your opponent whether he's won or not. In our (I think better) recreation of tournament combat, you take the responsibility to make sure he can fight again that day. Its a rough one, and not necessarily period, but I really think its necessary if the tourney style grows beyond a small group of familiar practitioners.

Asbjorn

Captain Jamie · Post by **Captain Jamie** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:07 pm

Dear Jean Richard- You have caught me at a time when my thoughts are faster than my fingers! Of course I do not mean to imply that all individuals that have talent, stamina, speed, power and a desire to win are without chivalry. I meant those other goobs, you know, the ones that only want the big "W" and are willing to sacrifice either the body or the spirit of the rules (written and unwritten) to getting that "W". Or the ones that show up for a tourney and wish to take part in no other activity at all. Or the ones that will respect only strength and aggression and not noble hearts. If you are not first you are not worth talking to in their eyes.I have noticed that these kind of people tend not to show up at pas' because the conditions for victory can be based on something other than their prowess. They appear to not want to waste their tourney time on an activity that makes the reward subjective (and in the hands of bystanders at that!) rather than objective. In a pas you may win every engagement and not get recognized as the superlative fighting machine that you are. The laurels may go to someone who struggled through every encounter and who showed grit and determination even when bested. This does not sit well with some individuals.
Another way to put it would be that I find it atypical for a fighter with prowess to be bereft of chivalric traits. However it does happen and prowess being what it is and our modern tourney system being what it is such individuals can and do prosper. Thus are born the "major competitive players" that I wrote of in my first post.

------------------
Captain Jamie-a marvellous valorous gentleman, that is certain
Failure is the price of knowledge

FrauHirsch · Post by **FrauHirsch** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 8:35 pm

Asbjorn,

When I ran a William the Marshal tourney last spring, I had problems with people using full body blocks to blowing people out of the field when I allowed the "manuever someone off the field" rule to defeat opponenets.

Several solid experienced fighters, who I personally have known to fight through injuries in the past, had to stop fighting due to being legally barreled into. No one did anything illegal by the SCA rules, currently anyone blow people off the field if they are not pressing the body. But usually it takes 3 times before someone is dead.

I agree with your rule as I have found there are people who will use the rules to their advantage sometimes without using common sense... One of the guys who hurt another is a fighter I respect and is not known to be a jerk. He admitted later that he had gotten out of hand. A rule that would counter out of control behavior seems reasonable. I think that would have toned down some of the football take down type maneuvers I saw at the Marshal tourney event.

Juliana

Cet · Post by **Cet** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 9:52 pm

Hi As', Don't worry, I don't feel picked on. I pretty much agree with your approach but I didn't state myself clearly. I was intending that you would lose the fight if you won using a deliberatly debilitating technique. I wasn't picturing the marshal stopping the bout because he "thought" the technique was going to be used but rather using the fact that it was used to disqualify the victory. I'm more or less trying to find a way around someone losing a bout because their opponents trick knee or shoulder or whatever, goes out in a fight.

Owen · Post by **Owen** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 6:39 am

I think it sounds like an intriguing idea- yes, accidents happen, but this would make fighters more careful to see that they didn't. It would also prevent someone from saying "Oops", and advancing while their opponent lies broken. It's very dificult to devine intent, something like this might be a better answer. I don't see how this could sow mistrust, quite the opposite, in my view. It's good to know your opponents are only trying to kill you, not hurt you.

Oh, Stoffel- I can guarantee that you would not enjoy the experience of a dislocated shoulder. It's an injury that keeps on giving.

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

Noe · Post by **Noe** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 9:23 am

I no problem with the idea of taking myself out of the game if I really hurt my opponent. Nor do I mind the marshals keeping their eyes out for "excesses". I just don't want to end up with judges.

------------------
The defining characteristic of fanaticism is the inability to understand why everyone else is not a fanatic.

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:07 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Cet:
Hi As', Don't worry, I don't feel picked on. I pretty much agree with your approach but I didn't state myself clearly. I was intending that you would lose the fight if you won using a deliberatly debilitating technique. I wasn't picturing the marshal stopping the bout because he "thought" the technique was going to be used but rather using the fact that it was used to disqualify the victory. I'm more or less trying to find a way around someone losing a bout because their opponents trick knee or shoulder or whatever, goes out in a fight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't think you would but just trying to keep the right tone

.

My concern is potentialy putting the guy who got hurt in a bad situation.

Consider a rough analouge in typical SCA sport combat. Most fighters are very hesitant to call another fighter for "blowing shots" most marshals even more so. Most folks always give the benefit of the doubt, or just don't want to appear to be whining, so very few accusations of blowing off shots actually occur in tourneys. If you accept the idea that someone who actually wants to or even inadvertantly (I didn't know if I wrenched his shoulder like taht it would go crack) hurts someone else shouldn't be rewarded, how do you handle it?

I don't want to ask someone who just got hurt what they think about what just happened, they have other concerns (probably like whose taking them to the hostiptal). I don't think we have a set of judges qualified to make the call (maybe in the future but not now).

This rule will result in cases of folks losing who didn't deserve to. In other words luck will be involved. You can lose because a weld on your helm goes, or your armour twits and binds. I'd rather have a deserving winner lose, than have to ask somone in extremely bad shape details about what they just fought. Its a hard qestion in SCA sport combat when a marshall asks what you think of that last blow you threw. The limitation gets rid of having the injured party make a hard judgement, while in pain, while everyone is watching.

It the limitation itself shouldn't be called into play all that often (I've been fighting like this for several years and haven't seen a case where it would be applied), but such injuries will occur.

Asbjorn

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:48 am

I just wrote a gigantic post about my feelings about what lies ahead for this type of fighting, but I deleted it.
-Vitus

Vebrand · Post by **Vebrand** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 12:51 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Consider a rough analouge in typical SCA sport combat. Most fighters are very hesitant to call another fighter for "blowing shots" most marshals even more so. Most folks always give the benefit of the doubt, or just don't want to appear to be whining, so very few accusations of blowing off shots actually occur in tourneys. If you accept the idea that someone who actually wants to or even inadvertantly (I didn't know if I wrenched his shoulder like that it would go crack) hurts someone else shouldn't be rewarded, how do you handle it?

Asbjorn[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The way to handle this in any SCA combat is aggressive marshalling. I recently fought in a coronet list and in one of the fights I won the marshall came to and asked about a body shot that looked good from his angle. I did not feel the shot and another marshall who had a different point of view said I had caught the shot with my shield and it barely grazed my tunic. I am a Knight and feel I have a good reputation of taking blows and did not mind the marshalls question. The thing I really liked was that it let all in the tourney know that everyone was being looked at the same. I have always been found of marshalls stepping in and saying let's talk about it now, instead of coming up after the fight and saying a fighter was a rhino.
I have followed this thread with mild interest. I like the idea of more physical fights and agree right now we in the SCA don't have enough skilled marshalls to say enough in this type of combat. When you can tell the difference between a fighter being hurt due to actions of his opponent or just dumb luck.. I also feel that more armor should be worn than many fighters wear if we are going to allow throws and sweeps.
The one concern is this type of fighting is size difference. A couple of years back I fought Duke Bear in a Trimarian pit tourney at Gulf Wars. Bear beat me the way he won most of his fights by pushing me out of the ring. A legal shield on shield push I could do nothing to stop. I am 5'9" and 200lb, while Bear is much, much bigger

To me this type of tourney favors the bigger fighters over the little fighters.
My long winded two cents,
Vebrand

Jareth · Post by **Jareth** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 2:40 pm

I am most likely the shortest fighter who has ever posted to this list. While I may not be the lightest currently, if I get back to my 'optimal' weight then I certainly would be.

That having been said...The idea of trying to equalize for size in a tournament of these kinds is simply ludicrous. I may try competing at some point, but I go in with the knowledge that my average opponent could win by virtue of spreading his arms and falling down on top of me. I would hope that eventually speed and skill might help in my desire to provide fair competition, but if I lose...then I lose.

Heh. What next? Change the rules of fencing so that it no longer favors people with quick reflexes?

My end feeling is that if someone is more suited to winning combat...either by size, strength, speed, mental focus or skill...Then they should win. The rules favor big people? Well, yeah. The rules of football favor big people too, you don't hear me calling for changes so that 5'2" 140 lb. 30 year olds can play in the NFL.

Trying to legislate equality is a step towards 'Harrison Bergeron'.

Cet · Post by **Cet** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 4:05 pm

I find that the more I think through Asbjorns original ideas about this rule the more I agree with his approach. Its simplicity has alot to recomend it.

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 7:33 pm

Hmmmmm Vitus looks displeased.

I really doubt we will have too many probles of this type for one reason.

Very few people will actually do it. If you tried to doa ARMF tourney with minimal armour on you'd get real banged up at minimum. It will likely stay in the realm of the more "nutty" Pas fighters.

It's just not gonna supplant regular fighting. Counted blows is barely used here, i really don't see em adopting anything close to ARMF except for maybe a few spacific lists.

Most of the rules we seem to require can be summed up as "Be nice, or don't play".