SCA fighting as martial art
Zebee Johnstone
One of the things that has annoyed me about SCA fighting is how it
is taught. Most of the fighter practices are about getting into
armour and hitting pells or people.
Very little theory, very little about movement, about focus.
That ties in with what Ken is saying about it being a sport not a
martial art.
So.. what can be done? What ways should SCA fighting be taught and
approached to make it a martial art?
Silfren
--
Zebee Johnstone (ze...@zip.com.au) Proud holder of aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"You don't own an Italian motorcycle
- you merely have the privilege of paying its bills."
k...@bu.edu
Zebee Johnstone (ze...@zip.com.au) wrote:
: One of the things that has annoyed me about SCA fighting is how it
: is taught. Most of the fighter practices are about getting into
: armour and hitting pells or people.
: Very little theory, very little about movement, about focus.
: That ties in with what Ken is saying about it being a sport not a
: martial art.
: So.. what can be done? What ways should SCA fighting be taught and
: approached to make it a martial art?
: Silfren
Well, part of it is that you need to have an experienced teacher to
show you. Richard Alvarez is in Houston, Adam Crown is in Ithaca, and Ramon
Martinez is in New York. Will Franz is also in New York. I may have skipped
some from out West, but they're there, especially around L.A.
All of these guys are, if not fencing masters, experienced
instructors. They're also the heirs of a tradition that has not deviated from
its from its martial focus from its inception in the Middle Ages.
--
Ken Mondschein
Work in Progress
Graduate Student, History Department, Boston University
Zebee Johnstone
In rec.org.sca on 28 Apr 1998 21:34:15 GMT
k...@bu.edu <k...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, part of it is that you need to have an experienced teacher to
>show you. Richard Alvarez is in Houston, Adam Crown is in Ithaca, and Ramon
>Martinez is in New York. Will Franz is also in New York. I may have skipped
>some from out West, but they're there, especially around L.A.
So if you have no teacher of great experience, it is impossible to
approach SCA fighting as anything other than a sport?
IS it a definition of a martial art that it must be taught by a teacher
of great experience? Most eastern martial art philosophies
would imply such.
Are those of us who don't live in the US condemned to sport fighting only?
>
> All of these guys are, if not fencing masters, experienced
>instructors. They're also the heirs of a tradition that has not deviated from
>its from its martial focus from its inception in the Middle Ages.
How does their expertise relate to SCA fighting specifically? Is
one fighting martial art the same as another?
I can learn Tai Chi as a martial art, and bits of it can help in
SCA fighting, but only bits. It doesn't teach me about SCA fighting
as a martial art.
So., how can SCa fighting be taught and approached as a martial art?
Silfren
Nordau
>What ways should SCA fighting be taught and
>approached to make it a martial art?
I think the first question is *should* SCA fighting be approached as a martial
art? Your proficiency with any physical exercise, sport or martial art, will
improve if you are taught in a systematic way. Most people who've tried to
learn SCA fighting, especially in the smaller groups, probably wish there was
more "system" and less idiosyncracy in the training method. But there's a
difference between systemization and a "martial art."
The real question, I think, is how to introduce a higher standard of
competition into the sport. The answer, I think, is to look at other sports and
see what methods are used to build and train teams.
Chuck Allen
Are you wanting to have to learn various names for certain blows? Would it make it
more acceptable to you if you had to learn a foreign language or just learn to "parrot"
the name of the blow to your teacher? That seems to be the main difference in the way
most martial arts are taught as compared to SCA combat. We don't go into the theory of
why this blow works and that type doesn't; we just let you "get into armour and hit
pells or people". That is the best way for our system to teach a person just what will
or won't work. As far as it being a martial art, it should be considered one anyway.
We just don't rent a gym and charge fees to teach people our art. I for one and happy
that I can learn from some of the great fighters in Meridies without having to hunt
them down and join their dojo or whatever. I can meet them at events and fighter
practices and learn from them without having to pay membership dues to their school.
The only dues I pay are my SCA dues.
Istvan Laszlo
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> One of the things that has annoyed me about SCA fighting is how it
> is taught. Most of the fighter practices are about getting into
> armour and hitting pells or people.
>
> Very little theory, very little about movement, about focus.
>
> That ties in with what Ken is saying about it being a sport not a
> martial art.
>
> So.. what can be done? What ways should SCA fighting be taught and
> approached to make it a martial art?
>
Zebee Johnstone
In rec.org.sca on 28 Apr 1998 22:37:21 GMT
Nordau <nor...@aol.com> wrote:
>>What ways should SCA fighting be taught and
>>approached to make it a martial art?
>
>art? Your proficiency with any physical exercise, sport or martial art, will
>improve if you are taught in a systematic way. Most people who've tried to
Yes - systematic is definitely important, but what
system?
When I was learning Tai Chi as a martial art, it was systematic in
that there were things you did and practiced that werre tied into
a whole.
But there was also a lot of stuff that wasn't obviously fighting. A lot
of movement training, balance, ways of looking at things.
>learn SCA fighting, especially in the smaller groups, probably wish there was
>more "system" and less idiosyncracy in the training method. But there's a
>difference between systemization and a "martial art."
Exactly. And which you want depends on what you are in it for. YOUr
comment below shows that you and I are in it for very different things.
>
>The real question, I think, is how to introduce a higher standard of
>competition into the sport. The answer, I think, is to look at other sports and
>see what methods are used to build and train teams.
That's not my real question at all. I am not after a higher standard
of competition. I will never be a highly competitive fighter. I
do want to be a good one, and I do want to learn more than bashbash,
I do want to also learn the grace, the focus, the balance and movement.
And *why* I'm doing things, not just what to do.
THe competition and winning aspect of SCA fighting can be fun but
it's not what hooked me. What attracts me is the feel.
Silfren
Bryan J. Maloney
> IS it a definition of a martial art that it must be taught by a teacher
> of great experience? Most eastern martial art philosophies
> would imply such.
Actually, some research has been done at CUNY, and it appears that at
least basic technique can be learned from diligent practice based on books
and videos.
John Richard Seavitt
I'll address a few points that have already come up below, but I'm
curious what drives your question. If you're looking for a martial art,
regardless of its cultural derivation, why not go get one? If it informs
playing at knights in dented armor, so much the better for you, I suppose.
Unfortunately, this whole conversation is going to be a bit broad, as
'martial art' ain't exactly the most precise of terms. Some others have
mentioned the benefits of a systematic transmission of fundamental
concepts and their application in a battlefield setting (I presume nobody
will be whipping out that rattan sword upon being mugged :) so at least we
don't have to cover that ground), but I think that alone is a far cry from
a MA, regardless of the presence of competitive context. A 'fighting
system' sure, but that's a dime a dozen. I don't even think I'd call it a
requirement that there be some sort of underlying 'spiritual' component,
which is probably good for most people. There's not a whole lot in the
Western European canon that survived intact (that is, with living
practicioners training a new generation...nobody had VCRs then, sheesh,
even if you could learn something besides your name from it) from the
medievil period, but I gather there is some. If you really need an
underlying reason, one candidate is the simple preservation of the
existing knowledge, and the desire to research, identify, and teach period
technique and spirit.
Unfortunately, I have the strong sense that there's this interesting mix
of period technique with a good dollop of "Damn, That Worked...I'll have
to Remember That!", which, while fun, just ain't real.
John Seavitt
JULIE ELAINE SIERACKI
If we're going to venture into the world of the martial arts then we're
going to open a huge can of worms. To begin with there are some martial
arts that are focused on philosophy and use the physical aspects to
reinforce the philosophical teachings. Others are aimed at teaching one
person how to physically impose their will upon another. Still others
take portions of the preceeding two extremes and apply them to a
competetive arena. I have met people who treat SCA heavy-fighting like
sport Taekwondo and people who treat it like Akido. I think the majority
fall in the competitive sport category.
So when we say 'martial art' which tradition are we referring to? I think
the last because I know that I certainly don't use certain techniques that
could seriously injure people and I pray that I never face some of the
folks I've crossed swords with if they take it into their head to 'play'
that way. But just because we fall in the realm of competitive sports
doesn't mean that there aren't traditions for us to draw upon or that we
are somehow inferior to a philosophy-based martial art.
If you want the SCA to be a martial art, study it as one, then teach it
as one. Maybe our tradition starts here.
Jester of Anglesey
posting from my wife's account
please address any e-mail to:
jjo...@dhha.org
ste...@faculty.unipissing.ca
In article <slrn6kcg8r...@zipper.zip.com.au>,
ze...@zip.com.au wrote:
> So.. what can be done? What ways should SCA fighting be taught and
> approached to make it a martial art?
>
> Silfren
In my opinion, it won't be easy and there will be no shortcuts. It will
happen over the course of a long period of time, when we develop great,
dedicated teachers who put forward their own methods. Then later generations
of teachers will synthesize their teachings.
How long those generations might be I don't know, but the SCA has developed
very few great teachers, and only one with vast influence -- Paul of
Bellatrix.
Finnvarr
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
BetNoir
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> One of the things that has annoyed me about SCA fighting is how it
> is taught. Most of the fighter practices are about getting into
> armour and hitting pells or people.
>
> Very little theory, very little about movement, about focus.
>
> That ties in with what Ken is saying about it being a sport not a
> martial art.
>
> approached to make it a martial art?
I do see it as a martial art. I have taken some martial arts classes,
and the difference it has made for me on the rapier field is
immesurable. Even the tai chi class taught me focus and movement.
Others' Mileage May Vary, but for me, it *is* a martial art.
And I would encourage fighters to take more 'traditional' martial arts
classes to work on that focus and movement.
--
Tiana di Redondo
NEVER parry with your head
BetNoir
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Why? What is it about talkiing, thinking, unarmoured movement,
> learning about balance, movement, and attitude that doesn't work
> in SCA fighting? Is SCA fighting so different from other weapons
> styles like classical or even sport fencing?
>
> I can't see that it is, so what things do you see as so different?
(sorry, had to answer this one separatly)
In one hand, I hold a rapier helm...and in the other a fencing mask...
I do both modern and period fence, and I can assure you that (at least
for me) there is a world of difference in how I approach each one.
Salle fencing is very tightly controlled. Forward...back....repeat as
necessary. To me, because of it's very controlled nature, it is an
athletic sport.
Rapier, I find much more 'flowing.' Much more focus not just on
movement but on TYPES of movement. Which works best for this void. For
that attack. And so on. In that sense, I view it more as a martial
art.
Again, Your Mileage May Vary
Peter O'Briaroak
a fighter practice is not for training it is for practice. if you want
training you have to find someone to train you. also pell work is the
foremost technique fo rlearning all your offense and most of your basic
movements.
H. R. Tracy
Zebee Johnstone wrote in message ...
>So.. what can be done? What ways should SCA fighting be taught and
>approached to make it a martial art?
Odd that no one in this thread has mentioned -- at least not so far -- the
one Martial Art that relates very closely; Kendo. There are differences, to
be sure, but if I were ever looking to actually step onto the field of
battle with steel in hand and life and limb on the line, Kenjitsu would
become my religion. And most universities and colleges have a Kendo club.
Kyle1axman
My Knight always held practice in a formal dojo style/atmosphere. Exercises &
warm ups are regimented. Technique & theaory are covered in many formats.
Fundemental physics & mechanics of the sword (stick) blow.
Pell work, Kata, then we fight each other. Alot of it was done out of armor.
I think it can be what you make out of it & who you look for to learn from.
There are other Knights that teach thoery technique & mechanics. If that is
what you are looking for, you need to do a little more shopping, or ask whom
ever is teaching you if they can cover these other areas or formats.
Squire William Kyle of the Wilderness
Amyripton
Lordy lordy lordy please don't teach SCA fighting as if it's a "martial art!"
> Most of the fighter practices are about getting into
>armour and hitting pells or people.
>
>Very little theory, very little about movement, about focus.
I am a fighter, but I came into medievalism/celticism/whatever ism I'm onto
today for the fun of making really cool early period stuff and to play some
music and to sing. And I love to fight, but I have way too much to do at an
event already, and I have a job and I'm a full time student and I don't have
time for SCA to become a martial art. Think about what that entails, folks.
Now, don't get me wrong, I practice and I try to improve my game, but "martial
arts" as we seem to know them in the US normally involve step by step training
and belt levels and one person being in charge, etc etc. All of that costs
money, takes time, and gets to be rather too controlling in the long run for
most of us. How many really good martial-artists have you met in your
lifetime? I haven't met many, but I've met a whole bunch of decent fighters
who have a lot of fun on the field. The focus inherent in martial arts, while
certainly beneficial to the person, takes a great deal of time and energy from
both student and teacher. Is that realistic to expect, considering the fact
that some of our fighters only go to a half-dozen battles a year?
The concept of practicing moves out of armor, while it may have its merits,
tends to mess with the development of muscle memory. It's muscle memory that
allows me to throw certain shots time and time again, and if I practice without
armor, then I have to adjust for its weight and its tendency to restrict
movement. Why practice twice as much if you can do the move in your armor
from the start, and then move on to another skill? (I've been to practices
where new fighters were told to march forward, backward, and to the side in
formation holding up imaginary shields and, you know what? IT SUCKED! No one
stayed to play--they couldn't recruit new fighters because they bored the
interest right out of them) Why pay a teacher when you can learn from your
friends at a local, low key, less competitive practice? We practice hitting
people because . . . well . . .we like to hit people. Come on, admit it! This
sport is as fun as it is because it's aggressive and wild and chaotic
(meleemeleemelee).
And, for the statement that's sure to get me some hate-mail . . .
In order to have a martial art, you need to base the learning system on the
discipline of the students and the respectability of the teachers . . .I can
admit I am not very disciplined (I rebel for the sake of rebelling whenever
possible), and I bet most of you out there are the same, whether you want to
admit it or not. And, I'm not sure we have enough honorable, respectable
people to whip us as a whole into the focused force a martial art is based on.
There's been talk on the rialto for days know about the failures inherent in
crown tournaments and the other systems of heirarchy in the SCA. No, there's
been no representative polling of the members' views on honor as it stands, but
there's enough questioning going on to hint that we don't have honor enough to
go around sometimes.
Leane ap Kerrigan, Warlord of Anglesey
Zebee Johnstone
In rec.org.sca on Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:57:20 -0500
Chuck Allen <las...@cyberback.com> wrote:
> Are you wanting to have to learn various names for certain blows? Would it make it
>more acceptable to you if you had to learn a foreign language or just learn to "parrot"
>the name of the blow to your teacher? That seems to be the main difference in the way
>most martial arts are taught as compared to SCA combat. We don't go into the theory of
I didn;t have to do any of that learning Tai Chi. Yes, a lot of commercial
places are into that, and it does focus people's minds some but it's
not required.
>why this blow works and that type doesn't; we just let you "get into
armour and hit >pells or people". That is the best way for our system
to teach a person just what will >or won't work. As far as it being a
Why? What is it about talkiing, thinking, unarmoured movement,
learning about balance, movement, and attitude that doesn't work
in SCA fighting? Is SCA fighting so different from other weapons
styles like classical or even sport fencing?
I can't see that it is, so what things do you see as so different?
I think you have maybe gotten the commercial "martial arts industry"
confused with the arts themselves.. It's like thinking that "massage
parlours" are the exact definition of massage :)
Silfren
Zebee Johnstone
In rec.org.sca on Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:56:24 -0500
John Richard Seavitt <jrse...@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>
>I'll address a few points that have already come up below, but I'm
>curious what drives your question. If you're looking for a martial art,
>regardless of its cultural derivation, why not go get one? If it informs
>playing at knights in dented armor, so much the better for you, I suppose.
I like SCA fighting. I want to do it better. I want to do it
as an art not a sport, where things are about personal development,
balance, movement, thinking, feeling, not "Who won that
tourney, lets do more modern sports stuff".
Silfren
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>
> I like SCA fighting. I want to do it better. I want to do it
> as an art not a sport, where things are about personal development,
> balance, movement, thinking, feeling, not "Who won that
> tourney, lets do more modern sports stuff".
>
> Silfren
Just to throw a few ideas out... i disagree with this whole martial art
thread. When i think of period fighting, i see two things:
1. The artsy, finesse-style fighting with rapiers as used in the later
years, and depicted in rapier-fighting in the SCA.
2. The heavy, basically hack-and-slash fighting used from the dawn of
time up until the late middle ages (when it was replaced by #1)
If you look back to when heavy-fighting was in its hey-day, not everyone
was a knight with formal instruction in sword-play, and sword-play
doesnt do much when that barbarian swings his claymore at you ;p
What I'm trying to say is, adding more emphasis on technique and
thinking to a sport in which strength could and often would over power
finesse isnt really a logical step.
Just as an example (yeah, i know hollywood makes stuff up all the time,
but this isnt too unrealistic)... At the end of Rob Roy, the big duel...
Rob Roy is using a larfe, long, heavy sword, and fighting with hack and
slash tactics. The other guy is using lots of frills and fncy footwork.
We see which one gets cut in half, and which one doesnt.
Im not saying theres NO technique involved... or that there shouldnt be
any... But a strong peasant with a big cudgel stands a pretty good
chance on a weak knight who is well-versed in the techniques and
philosophies behind sword-play...
-Mefiston
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>
> Why? What is it about talkiing, thinking, unarmoured movement,
> learning about balance, movement, and attitude that doesn't work
> in SCA fighting? Is SCA fighting so different from other weapons
> styles like classical or even sport fencing?
Yes. it is. Heavy fighting, with everything from maces and axes, to
broadswords, to claymores and pole arms is VERY different from fencing.
In fencing, agility and speed count more than strength. You dont block
a thrust, you parry it or dodge it. Technique is very important in a
sport like this. In your traditional broadsword fight, ya tend to move
less, and block more. Basically, ya stand there while he hits you, and
then hit him back. Strength is more important than agility. And if ya
doubt what i say, as proof i offer the armor. Do you think the Scots
sat around talking thinking and learning about attitude before a war?
No... they grabbed their kilts and claymores, yelled really loud, and
hacked at their enemies. (They did practice feats of strength--such as
the illustrious scottish sport of tossing telephone poles about) Did
they have specific moves? Well, yeah, a big over-head chop, as taught by
instinct. Heavy-fighting is what it implies. taking heavy weapons and
trying to hack, bash, chop, and maim your opponent. And it's great!
-Mefiston
Zebee Johnstone
In rec.org.sca on Wed, 29 Apr 1998 03:15:50 GMT
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net <mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>1. The artsy, finesse-style fighting with rapiers as used in the later
>years, and depicted in rapier-fighting in the SCA.
>
>2. The heavy, basically hack-and-slash fighting used from the dawn of
>time up until the late middle ages (when it was replaced by #1)
Hmm.. Is there any solid evidence for this? I beleive the
earliest manual dates from the mid 1300s, and seemed to
indicate there was skill and training then.
>
>If you look back to when heavy-fighting was in its hey-day, not everyone
>was a knight with formal instruction in sword-play, and sword-play
>doesnt do much when that barbarian swings his claymore at you ;p
I would imagine that mostly unarmoured types such as that
barbarian would have to learn all sorts of things - how to move
out of the way, how to keep balance, the best way
to swing the thing... I have no idea if he learned about
"cut through" and "focus", but it's possible.
Is "martial art" meaning "fancy swordplay", or is
it more than that?
>What I'm trying to say is, adding more emphasis on technique and
>thinking to a sport in which strength could and often would over power
>finesse isnt really a logical step.
Hmm.. do you have evidence for that? I don't really know a lot
about actual fighting, as there are so few surviving
treatises. It would seem odd to me that there would be no
thought given to how smaller types could hold out against bloody
great big ones, or how to conserve strength and energy in
a long fight.
Is the idea that learning how to move yourself out of harm's
way while keeping your balance and your guard up is a modern one?
How were peopel trained to fight for their lives?
>Just as an example (yeah, i know hollywood makes stuff up all the time,
>but this isnt too unrealistic)... At the end of Rob Roy, the big duel...
>Rob Roy is using a larfe, long, heavy sword, and fighting with hack and
>slash tactics. The other guy is using lots of frills and fncy footwork.
>We see which one gets cut in half, and which one doesnt.
As I say - Why is "martial art" equated to "fancy footwork" for you?
And I have seen someone do the exact opposite. They moved out of the way,
slid in, and skewered the big guy with the big sword beautifully
neatly.
>Im not saying theres NO technique involved... or that there shouldnt be
>any... But a strong peasant with a big cudgel stands a pretty good
>chance on a weak knight who is well-versed in the techniques and
>philosophies behind sword-play...
Really? Having seen my 50yo Tai Chi teacher do some rather impressive
things without even breathing hard, I'd have to disagree. He can move his
hand about 4" and move a heavy bag further than a rather large lad kicked it.
If what you say is true, then how come I see small SCA fighters who
are skilled easily defeat bigger but less skilled ones?
Silfren
Amyripton
>when we develop great,
>dedicated teachers who put forward their own methods
from what I've experienced, many of the people who have tried to teach me a few
pointers here and there about fighting have been a) trying to bolster their own
egos by telling a person they didn't know something they were sure I couldn't
live without hearing _again_, and b)forgetting that certain tactics are based
far more on size than they are on technique. I'm 5'4" on a tall day. And if I
were to build up the muscle mass most of the boys I fight with have I wouul be
. . .well, I'd never get a date to another prom. When a six footer starts
telling me to simply stay put when the shield wall starts charging, I can't
help but laugh. And when they tell me the same thing a few more times, I start
to get testy.
I'm not saying that no one should offer pointers to other fighters. I'm simply
suggesting that those out there wishing to offer advice do so with a modicum of
respect to whomever they wish to instruct--especially if it's someone you don't
know (I recently had someone speak to me in the
you-must-be-the-celtic-welfare-heavy-fighting-mother-of-the-year -tone recently
asking me if I _chose_ to fight with a 7" foot spear or if that was _all_ I
could get a hold of. It was just plain rude.) And, when you want to give
advice to a person who is shaped differently than yourself, think for a
nano-second about whether the advice is at all applicable to their style and
ability as a fighter.
And--most importantly--never assume that just because you have never met that
fighter over there you want to give a few pointers to, that person is an idiot
who has never picked up a stick. Condescension gets you even shorter distances
than do roller skates with square wheels.
Lanea ap Kerrigan, Warlord of Anglesey
Bellatrix2
Greetings,
>One of the things that has annoyed me about SCA fighting is how it
>> is taught. Most of the fighter practices are about getting into
>> armour and hitting pells or people.
Practice is for practice, if your teacher is there too, you may be taught as
well. Pell work is for training, and for learning and practicing what you
have learned.
>> Very little theory, very little about movement, about focus.
Speak for your self. The school of Bellatrix teaches approximately 90%+ of its
style and taching out of armor. My father professes a year or so before
gettinginto armor, but most poeple will not wait that long to fight. We have
only had five or so students wait anywhere close to that long.
My father travels around teaching seminars that last for a week or two days,
depending on availability of time and people. I myself run my branch of our
school as a dojo would be run. All aspects of a Martial Art can be seen in our
school's teaching.
Stephan
pblack...@geocities.com
In article <slrn6kcnah...@zipper.zip.com.au>,
ze...@zip.com.au wrote:
>
>> SNIP <<
> That's not my real question at all. I am not after a higher standard
> of competition. I will never be a highly competitive fighter. I
> do want to be a good one, and I do want to learn more than bashbash,
> I do want to also learn the grace, the focus, the balance and movement.
I agree with a higher standard, of what, is my question. Competition? I
believe that there is already a HIGH level of competition (see the Alfa-Male
BS posts). The standard of competition is, IMHO, lowering however. Most of the
untrained fighters (usually from small groups) don't know what they're doing
when it comes to fighting. (I was one of these) Sure they can go out and WHAP
someone occasionally, and probobly have a lot of fun doing it. If that's all
they want to do, fine. I could NEVER see SCA combat (light heavy or otherwise)
as a martial art. I have studied shotokan. A recognized martial art. That was
for defense in my real life. I have had to use it in my real life. That is the
reason to study a martial art in my opinion. Real Life Use. Until they outlaw
firearms (God forbid) I will never use these techniques in real life. It is a
recreation for me. (Read sport) I think it mostly depends on your point of
view. IMHO, this is recreation that is re-creation. I don't make it my life.
(I think I already have one of those, but that's another story) If enough
people think that it is primarily re-creation, let them organize the 'martial
art' end of it.
>
> And *why* I'm doing things, not just what to do.
>
> THe competition and winning aspect of SCA fighting can be fun but
> it's not what hooked me. What attracts me is the feel.
>
> Silfren
>
eew, to philosophical for me, why ask why? Drink Bud dry...............(BANG)
Piers has just fallen to a gunshot wound to the back of the head.
Seriously though, why you're doing certain techniques is because YOU
think they're gonna work, right. If this is re-creation, why did the medieval
fighters do it? BECAUSE THEY HAD TO. For survival. (See Above) If this is
recreation, the point is moot. Why one throws a shot doesn't matter as long as
it hits.
IMHO, the competition IS the aspect that hooks most people, not "the
feel". You compete and lose and get better. You compete some more and win
some. Competition improves your skill. Winning is derived from extended
competition.
Let's realize that the SCA is NOT real life. As such, SCA combat cannot
be a 'true' martial art. It can, however, be an extremely fun recreation
(sport). Let's try to realize we're in this for the fun of it. If you're not
having fun, why are you doing it?
I sincerely apologize for the rant........
In humble service to the people and crown of AEthelmearc,
Piers Blackmonster
temptabundus adfecto scriptor
Morgan E. Smith
It is obvious that you _haven't_ actually tried fighting heavy in the SCA.
While from the sidelines, there may seem to be similarities, Kendo has
almost no useful application to SCA fighting, nor would it work
particularly well against real steel combat. We've had a number of people
who had years of Kendo behind them say the same thing. Then we put them in
armour and take them out on the field. Every single one has walked away
saying the same thing:
"Hey, this isn't at _all_ like what I know."
Kendo, and Kenjitsu (which is much less frequently taught nowadays) are
highly formalized martial arts that depend heavily on everyone playing the
same game. SCA fighting is an ad hoc, make-it-up-as-you-go kind of
fighting, that can be adapted for different types of bodies, speed, and
mental attitudes. It could be that a good Kendo master, after some
adaptations over time, could become a good SCA fighter. But then, lots of
people with no Kendo experience become good fighters all the time.
Morgan the Unknown
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <6i6b3b$l3s$1...@news.chatlink.com>, "Peter O'Briaroak"
<harl...@spnt.com> wrote:
If there are no classes at "practice", what good is it? How many people
have unlimited time?
And while a dummy can be useful, it teaches you nothing you do not already know.
Bryan J. Maloney
"pointers" is not the same thing as a system.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <354661...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>,
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
> Just to throw a few ideas out... i disagree with this whole martial art
> thread. When i think of period fighting, i see two things:
>
> 1. The artsy, finesse-style fighting with rapiers as used in the later
> years, and depicted in rapier-fighting in the SCA.
First, "artsy, finesse-style" probably means "like modern fencing" for
you--that is NOT Renaissance rapier combat. Second, Renaissance rapier
combat is not depicted in "rapier-fighting in the SCA", with a few
exceptions.
> If you look back to when heavy-fighting was in its hey-day, not everyone
> was a knight with formal instruction in sword-play, and sword-play
> doesnt do much when that barbarian swings his claymore at you ;p
Really? And your evidence for your contention that technique means
nothing against brute force is?
> What I'm trying to say is, adding more emphasis on technique and
> thinking to a sport in which strength could and often would over power
> finesse isnt really a logical step.
Evidence for this?
>
> Just as an example (yeah, i know hollywood makes stuff up all the time,
> but this isnt too unrealistic)... At the end of Rob Roy, the big duel...
> Rob Roy is using a larfe, long, heavy sword, and fighting with hack and
> slash tactics. The other guy is using lots of frills and fncy footwork.
> We see which one gets cut in half, and which one doesnt.
No, this is CRAP. Tell me, what proof do you have that this is how things
would have actually worked out. Were I the fellow with the transitional
rapier, I'd have skewered Mr. Liam several times over, and I'm a lousy
fighter. What evidence do you have for your contentions?
> Im not saying theres NO technique involved... or that there shouldnt be
> any... But a strong peasant with a big cudgel stands a pretty good
> chance on a weak knight who is well-versed in the techniques and
> philosophies behind sword-play...
Really? Tell me, what evidence do you have?
Bryan J. Maloney
> Zebee Johnstone wrote in message ...
> >So.. what can be done? What ways should SCA fighting be taught and
> >approached to make it a martial art?
>
>
> Odd that no one in this thread has mentioned -- at least not so far -- the
> one Martial Art that relates very closely; Kendo. There are differences, to
> be sure, but if I were ever looking to actually step onto the field of
> battle with steel in hand and life and limb on the line, Kenjitsu would
> become my religion. And most universities and colleges have a Kendo club.
There are definite resemblences between Japanese stylings and European
two-handed sword schools.
JULIE ELAINE SIERACKI
Zebee Johnstone (ze...@zip.com.au) wrote:
: One of the things that has annoyed me about SCA fighting is how it
: is taught. Most of the fighter practices are about getting into
: armour and hitting pells or people.
: Very little theory, very little about movement, about focus.
: That ties in with what Ken is saying about it being a sport not a
: martial art.
: So.. what can be done? What ways should SCA fighting be taught and
: approached to make it a martial art?
: Silfren
: --
: Zebee Johnstone (ze...@zip.com.au) Proud holder of aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
: "You don't own an Italian motorcycle
: - you merely have the privilege of paying its bills."
Fighter practice is primarily an opportunity to learn something new and
test out the skills you learned during the week in a fighting situation.
When I leave a fighter practice I try to come away with two new concepts;
a new shot, a new combination, a new visualization technique, a new insight,
whatever. Then I practice it three times before the next fighter practice.
Pell work, slow work, visualization, discussion with whomever I can corner.
Then I try it out and see how it works and try to learn something else new.
My last shield died back in early February and I haven't fought since. But
I still go to fighter practice and watch, and ask questions and, hopefully,
learn. I also devour anything I can find on heavy combat. There are an
awful lot of good teachers out there and a number of them have written down
their thoughts on heavy combat on some point or another. Bellatrix, Oldcastle,
Cariadoc of the Bow, Wlfric of Derenford, Heinrich von Westfelsen, Mieczko and
others. I've got all their writings in a binder along with my personal
journal and my scribbled notes.
Unless you have a personal relationship with someone who has agreed to
give of their time to teach you how to fight you shouldn't expect someone
to drop everything to instruct you. I've never met a peer yet who wouldn't
offer advice when asked, but they're there to learn too. Don't expect to
learn everything about fighting at fighter practice.
Bryan J. Maloney
Some "interesting" opinions have been raised regarding the function of
"fighter practice" within SCA. I think these opinions belong to people
with fairly luxuriant situations vis trainers.
However, similarly "interesting" opinions have been raised regarding the
place and function of individual practice. I have no idea where these
opinions come from.
Therefore, I will offer an analysis of the pedagogical methods of one
martial art that is at least some of the descendents of the European
Renaissance and medieval forms of individual combat. I refer to classical
fencing, French and English stick-fighting and French bayonet fencing.
These pedagogical methods were developed starting in the 16th century (at
least), as far as my reading can discern. However, they did not reach
their full methodological development until the 19th century. Thus, do
not take them as an example of "period" practices, merely of practices
that work for a family of weapon-based martial arts.
The training of an individual takes place in four venues: The group
class, the individual practice, bouting (supervised and unsupervised), and
the individual lesson.
The group class is probably the most efficient and effective way for a
master to teach the basics to beginners. The mistakes made by beginners
in stance, weapon-handling, and movement are often amazingly similar to
each other. Furthermore, the advice imparted at such a "basic" level is
primary--primal, that is--the sort of thing that all combatants need to
know. While the student can only gain limited personal attention, in
general, the student only needs limited personal attention. The mere fact
that others are there, doing the same drills, in a purportedly supportive
environment, can do immeasurable good. Furthermore, the instructor is
still available during drills to examine all students and give some
individual help.
Individual practice is simply the student practicing, on his own, what he
has been taught. While some discoveries can come of this, in general it
is not a teaching method. It is a reenforcement method. Beginners are
encouraged to practice individually from the start. However, individual
practice in the beginning is of actual limited technical value. The real
value in initial individual practice is that it gets the student into the
habit of the *discipline* of individual practice. Individual practice
only really starts to take off when the student actually has attained some
mastery of the techniques employed--enough for the student to actually
*realize when he has not done it right* and *realize when he has done it
right*. The student can then act as a self-corrector in these
circumstances. However, a badly-executed blow practiced 1000 times will
not magically become a well-executed blow. It will only become a
well-practiced badly-executed blow, and thus a greater hurdle to overcome
later. Individual practice is to *supplement* the class or the lesson,
never replace it. The advantage is that it can be done anywhere the
student is, whenever the student has the time, and if it's footwork, with
no equipment at all.
Supervised Bouting, which can also be called "applied class" is where the
student can get the most immediately powerful feedback. Will a defense
work as I do it right now? If I get whacked, obviously not. Supervised
bouting, under the eye of the master, permits the master to observe what
the student is doing right, and what needs more work. Unsupervised
bouting can also be called "group practice". If the students are
sufficiently skilled, it will help reenforce good techniques. If the
students are insufficiently skilled, it will reenforce bad techniques that
happen to work against a sufficiently unskilled opponent.
Finally, we come to the individual lesson. In a context wherein the
master has limited time, this is something that he must be selective in
teaching. Like it or not, there is not an infinite amount of time out
there. Not all students will need individual lessons. It is possible for
an individual to become quite skilled, even a champion, via group classes,
and supervised and unsupervised bouting. Such people are sometimes looked
upon as "gifted"--I'm of the opinion that they just are better at paying
attention than I am. Likewise, not all students will necessarily benefit
from individual lessons any more than they would benefit from a group
class. The advantage of the individual lesson is that it permits the
master to work directly with the student on special problems. The
disadvantage is that it limits the master's "teaching spread", thus
severely reducing value when teaching beginners.
It has been my experience that the majority of SCA groups, being run by
amateurs who have day jobs, encapsulate all but individual practice into
their weekly "fighter practice"--it just isn't practical to have all the
above. Unfortunately, this has led to some misunderstanding of pedagogial
theory in regards to technical training. Some groups severely
underestimate the time necessary before a beginner is ready to bout
without having his skill damaged by the experience. Likewise, some groups
over-value individual practice, thinking that it is some kind of magic
effect that will impart technique where none exists. Finally, it appears
that some groups, with a luxury of time and teachers, are of the opinion
that all other groups have this luxury and try to claim that SCA "fighter
practice" must only be bouting.
Some groups do actually seem to gravitate into the four pedagogical
categories. However, SCA culture offers the following impediments:
1: There is a tradition in SCA to just toss the new guys in after "sword
101" and "shield 101", to let them "learn it in a fight". Some people
learn, I would say that most don't learn much. Unfortunately social
inertia is a powerful force.
2: Given that potential teachers in SCA are also competitors, the time
that a teacher teaches at a "practice" is time that he cannot, himself,
practice against higher-caliber opponents. This discourages some from
teaching.
3: The fact that all rewards for teaching in SCA are internal means that
it's easier for people to burn out on it. Like it or not, money can mean
a difference. Military and civilian sword-masters throughout history were
recompensed for their efforts--it's what kept them on the job when they
didn't feel like it. (I have no doubt that some yobbo is going to leap
down my throat propagandizing incoherently about "honor" and "duty", but
like it or not, a lack of material recompense for effort is an
impediment. The fact that it's not pretty doesn't mean it isn't real.)
4: The SCA "fighter practice" is often a very low-structure phenomenon,
and only occurs once a week, thus limiting what can be done.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <35465ED0...@cyberback.com>, Chuck Allen
<las...@cyberback.com> wrote:
> most martial arts are taught as compared to SCA combat. We don't go
into the theory of
> why this blow works and that type doesn't; we just let you "get into
armour and hit
> pells or people". That is the best way for our system to teach a person
just what will
Really? And your evidence for this?
> or won't work. As far as it being a martial art, it should be
considered one anyway.
Really? And your evidence for this?
Bryan J. Maloney
> In one hand, I hold a rapier helm...and in the other a fencing mask...
Rapier helm? Hee hee! Now THAT has got to be a SCA shibboleth...
> I do both modern and period fence, and I can assure you that (at least
> for me) there is a world of difference in how I approach each one.
>
> Salle fencing is very tightly controlled. Forward...back....repeat as
> necessary. To me, because of it's very controlled nature, it is an
> athletic sport.
>
> Rapier, I find much more 'flowing.' Much more focus not just on
> movement but on TYPES of movement. Which works best for this void. For
> that attack. And so on. In that sense, I view it more as a martial
> art.
Actually, classical fencing is very much about flow. As for sideways
movement--ever hear of traversas and voltes? Classical fencing is not
olympic fencing.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <354665...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>,
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
> sport like this. In your traditional broadsword fight, ya tend to move
> less, and block more. Basically, ya stand there while he hits you, and
> then hit him back. Strength is more important than agility. And if ya
Really, and what is your historical evidence for this? Please, do
enlighten us. Tell that to Dr. Jeffrey Singman of the University of
Michigan, who is translating and analysing a 13th-century broadsword
manual that has a LOT of moving around in the combat.
What is the evidence for what you keep saying? Hollywood movies?
> the illustrious scottish sport of tossing telephone poles about) Did
> they have specific moves? Well, yeah, a big over-head chop, as taught by
> instinct. Heavy-fighting is what it implies. taking heavy weapons and
> trying to hack, bash, chop, and maim your opponent. And it's great!
Please cite some real historical facts rather than "Masters of the Universe".
Jon and Debbie
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> There are definite resemblences between Japanese stylings and European
> two-handed sword schools.
The operative word being "resemblences".... *S*
--
Sir Iain MacGuadhre of Ulva, Duke of Windemere
____________________
For an alternative in Medieval Reenactment in New England, visit our
website!
http://members.tripod.com/~Windemere
Jon and Debbie
Morgan E. Smith wrote:
> It is obvious that you _haven't_ actually tried fighting heavy in the SCA.
> While from the sidelines, there may seem to be similarities, Kendo has
> almost no useful application to SCA fighting, nor would it work
> particularly well against real steel combat. We've had a number of people
> who had years of Kendo behind them say the same thing. Then we put them in
> armour and take them out on the field. Every single one has walked away
> saying the same thing:
> "Hey, this isn't at _all_ like what I know."
<-----snip----->
As a student of Shinkendo (Tradional Samurai Swordsmanship... the "art of drawing
and cutting") I found that almost ALL of my training was useless in a SCA-type
melee situation. Wearing my hakuma and swinging a bokken (or even a katana
during tameshigiri... "test cutting") I was fast, accurate, pretty damn good,
actually, but whenever I armour up and go out in the field with a chunk of rattan
in my hand (even if it is the same size and weight) I resort back to the fighting
methods taught to me when I first joined the SCA.
Two years ago I even designed, built and wore Samurai-style armour (and it was
instantly forbidden by Markland because it wasn't "period".... they seem to have
confused "period" with "European" and what the hell was a Scot doing wearing
Japanese armour?) and even in Samurai armour it was still horribly different,
even though that style armour was a lot less restraining than my European-style
armour and only about half as heavy.
Jon and Debbie
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>Really? And your evidence for this?
> > or won't work. As far as it being a martial art, it should be
> considered one anyway.
>
> Really? And your evidence for this?
Well... you seem to have all the answers.. how about "enlightening" us
"completely ignorant" medeival reenactment "wannabes"?
cu...@att.com
In article <bjm10-29049...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
> 3: The fact that all rewards for teaching in SCA are internal means that
> it's easier for people to burn out on it. Like it or not, money can mean
> a difference. Military and civilian sword-masters throughout history were
> recompensed for their efforts--it's what kept them on the job when they
> didn't feel like it. (I have no doubt that some yobbo is going to leap
> down my throat propagandizing incoherently about "honor" and "duty", but
> like it or not, a lack of material recompense for effort is an
> impediment. The fact that it's not pretty doesn't mean it isn't real.)
Yes.... one of my favorite rant subjects. Putting aside the fact that many
if not all SCA 'teachers' in both heavy and light combat are not as good as a
professional teacher, these dedicated amatuers are certainly taking time away
from their own personal development every time that they help a lesser
student. While it is not possible or suggested to add real money to the SCA
world, I think the SCA students owe far more respect to their teachers than I
usually see given out. While I admit that SCA should keep a light and
relaxed feel to it, there's a big difference between going into a real
Salle/Dojo where the only sounds are weapons and feet and the only voice
being heard is that of the teahcers as opposed to a typical SCA practice
which is more like a social get together/play time. We should try to show a
little more respect. I'm going to steal from an article by Nick Jamilla for
a moment:
"A former professor, Fr. James Schall, once offered, in an excellent
essay, four "things" a student owes his teacher - things equally
applicable to the fencer towards his instructor. The first was trust;
trust not only by demonstrating goodwill towards what the instructor had
to teach, but even more important, a trust in one's self. Secondly, the
student owes his docility - "his capacity of being taught." Thirdly, the
effort to study the subject. And lastly, and most importantly, the
effort to think about the subject, around it, and throughout it."
The problem is that SCA teachers are not granted the same levels of authority
that a professional teacher would have in his own Salle. I think one of the
reasons that Scadians learn so badly sometimes is simply because they aren't
shelling out a lot of money. Trust me, you pay a lot more attention to the
teacher when it is on your dime. While some Scadians get joy out of
teaching, most teachers already know how to fight and this is all for the
student's benefit.
MSR has their own internal system of money and people are rewarded for
showing up to events. Each year all of the MSR citizens also have to pay
taxes in order to keep what titles they already have. While it will never
happen, I'd like to see a system where SCA teachers could receive some form
of credit or internal (not real) money for each student that they taught.
As final questions: Who feels that one should be a marshal before teaching?
Should teaching be a seperate position than marshal since a marshal is only
trained as a safety officer?
Christopher J Umbs
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net writes:
>Just as an example (yeah, i know hollywood makes stuff up all the time,
>but this isnt too unrealistic)... At the end of Rob Roy, the big duel...
>Rob Roy is using a larfe, long, heavy sword, and fighting with hack and
>slash tactics. The other guy is using lots of frills and fncy footwork.
>We see which one gets cut in half, and which one doesnt.
You have a very selective memory, Rob Roy was chopped liver and never
had a serious chance to win except for the last minute overweaning
arrogance and overconfidence of the fop.
I will leave it to others to comment about realisticness of either
characters combat style.
Robert the pilegrim
A weapon? I would never carry a weapon, I just travel about with this
staff to keep me from falling down...
E. F. MORRILL
In <6i7vok$mtk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> cu...@att.com writes:
{SNIP}
>Yes.... one of my favorite rant subjects. Putting aside the fact that many
>if not all SCA 'teachers' in both heavy and light combat are not as good as a
>professional teacher, these dedicated amatuers are certainly taking time away
>from their own personal development every time that they help a lesser
>student. While it is not possible or suggested to add real money to the SCA
>world, I think the SCA students owe far more respect to their teachers than I
>usually see given out. While I admit that SCA should keep a light and
>relaxed feel to it, there's a big difference between going into a real
>Salle/Dojo where the only sounds are weapons and feet and the only voice
>being heard is that of the teahcers as opposed to a typical SCA practice
>which is more like a social get together/play time. We should try to show a
>little more respect. I'm going to steal from an article by Nick Jamilla for
>a moment:
>"A former professor, Fr. James Schall, once offered, in an excellent
{Fr. James Schall's quote snipped}
Just to jump into things...:-)
If you are in the NYC area, I would suggest that you stop by 17th and
Broadway in Manhattan on a Tuesday night. I think you might be suprised.
It really might be a little different from what you're used to.
>The problem is that SCA teachers are not granted the same levels of authority
>that a professional teacher would have in his own Salle. I think one of the
>reasons that Scadians learn so badly sometimes is simply because they aren't
>shelling out a lot of money. Trust me, you pay a lot more attention to the
>teacher when it is on your dime. While some Scadians get joy out of
>teaching, most teachers already know how to fight and this is all for the
>student's benefit.
Yes, it is for the students benefit. (what do you mean "most teachers
already know how to fight...." . I would suppose that this would have to
be true, or else one couldn't teach...Though I am told there are those who
claim such abilities...:-)
That is what teaching is.
Imparting of superior knowledge to less knowledgable persons. Yes, If SCA
instructors could getpaid it might be nice. However, as in any situation,
if one gets bored, one quits.
>MSR has their own internal system of money and people are rewarded for
>showing up to events. Each year all of the MSR citizens also have to pay
>taxes in order to keep what titles they already have. While it will never
>happen, I'd like to see a system where SCA teachers could receive some form
>of credit or internal (not real) money for each student that they taught.
Hmmmm. Well if one is a knight, I've always been told, one of the
duties of Knighthood is to teach. So not to teach, freely, would be
a violation of their knightly oaths.
Who would judge what a persons teaching was worth? By the number of
people who would attain knighthood from these teachings? Who would
determine what "style" was worth more than others. I'm told there are ways
to fight that perhaps would make you an overnight wonder, but you can only
fight for 3-4 years. Other styles allow for fighting for 25+
years....WHich is better?
>As final questions: Who feels that one should be a marshal before teaching?
>Should teaching be a seperate position than marshal since a marshal is only
>trained as a safety officer?
A marshal is not a teacher. Generally it is separate, if the skills
of the marshall are not a true "expert" level.
EDWARD Z
--
E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World
Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer
aka Viscount Edward Zifran of Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC
Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL
Kyle1axman
I was fortunate enough to be in one of the classes at a Duke Sir Guys wall
raising. My Knight was also present. Duke Sir Paul of Bellatrix was there & we
spent a good 3 hours "OUT OF ARMOR" practicing. learning motion & flow of
motion. conservation of motion and much more before we suited up.
What His Grace is saying is absolutely true. We all walked away with more
know;edge & tools to work with that Freewind incorpotrated into his practice& I
have since incorporated in mine.
Since my move out of Caid I have found other Knights that understand the theory
& applications of motion from other martial arts to SCA sword fighting. I
habve been fortunate enough to find them & continue my education in this
fashiom.
It's out there if you want it, you can find it. There are others we call
"Sink or Swim" teachers out there as well. If that is what you want then great
for you have fun.
You simply need to communicate your wants to the various teachers available &
shop around.
Squire William Kyle of the Wilderness
Katy Payne
martial: (adj.) pert. to war or to the armed services; warlike; military
art: (noun) skill; human skill as opposed to nature; skill applied
music, painting, poetry, etc.; any of the subjects of this skill; a
system of rules; a profession or craft; cunning; trick.
arts: (n. plur.) certain branches of learning, languages, history, etc.
as distinct from natural science.
I like to fight. I've always liked to fight as long as I can remember.
It wasn't that I wanted to hurt others around me. I just enjoy a good
scrap. I wrestled all the way through school. I boxed while I was in the
army. I studied Kenpo for five years. For a while there, I bounced at
bars not because I needed the money, but because it was exciting
sometimes. As a correctional officer, I have often utilized these skills
to protect myself and others.
IMHO, SCA heavy weapons fighting experience is every bit as valuble to
someone in a precarious situation as any other skill obtained
by years of training. Our armor allows us to engage in Very Aggressive
non-stop scenarios that can not be simulated easily. We gain a pretty
unique perspective as we learn what it is like to hit/be hit very hard
by a mobile opponent. I was taught, and I teach those I instruct, how to
assess threats. We learn when to run and when to fight and what to do
when cornered. Heavy weapons fighting instills confidence when taught
correctly. If you put a lot into it, it will help make you strong,
healthy and self-reliant.
(I dont fight rapier, so I won't lump it in with heavy weapons.)
I like the Society the way it is now. I know that most of us that are
actually involved agree. I try to remember that whenever I read a thread
like this where some advocate sweeping changes, or degrade SCA status
quo. Our society isn't perfect, but it's good enough for me. I got
involved in the local scene when I became unhappy with the way things
were going and actually managed to affect positive change. Anybody else
could do the same thing. I liked Finnvarr's idea. Why worry over the
semantics of "honor" or "martial arts" when you can take an active roll
in solving your own complaint?
Lothar
Zebee Johnstone
In rec.org.sca on Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:55:07 -0400
Jon and Debbie <ca...@hamtel.tds.net> wrote:
>Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
>>Really? And your evidence for this?
>
>> > or won't work. As far as it being a martial art, it should be
>> considered one anyway.
>>
>> Really? And your evidence for this?
>
>Well... you seem to have all the answers.. how about "enlightening" us
>"completely ignorant" medeival reenactment "wannabes"?
I didn;t see him having answers, I saw him asking a question of
someone who made a statement.
If the person *can't* back up their statement, then it shouldn't
have been made should it?
I asked the same question of the same person. What evidence is there
for the things said? I want to know. I want to learn. But
I also want to be as sure as I can be that the things I learn
are true.
Silfren
Gore Crow
> As far as it being a martial art, it should be
>> considered one anyway.
Is SCA heavy weapons fighting an art? Sure it is. It takes skill and natural
aptitude.
Would this skill help one fight and potentially kill another? Damned skippy!
If pursued diligently and with the correct frame of mind. That means it's
basically martial in nature.
Must be a martial art.
Vivat Trimaris, vivat The Dream
Mark Schuldenfrei
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
And while a dummy can be useful, it teaches you nothing you do not
already know.
You know, I think your posting style demonstrates this quite nicely.
Tibor
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (sch...@math.harvard.edu)
"Yep. I have often wished I could charge an idiot tax. But then, I probably
would have been hit up for change a few time myself." -- Devin
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
>
> First, "artsy, finesse-style" probably means "like modern fencing" for
> you--that is NOT Renaissance rapier combat. Second, Renaissance rapier
> combat is not depicted in "rapier-fighting in the SCA", with a few
> exceptions.
>
No, i do understand that there's a great deal of difference, in both
weapon construction, and how you used it. The modern foils are the end
result of what i consider the complete DEvolution of the sword; i was
not referring to modern fencing at all--i was referring to the rapier
combat of the late 16th century, which was more of a
thrusting/parriying/dancing-about-gaily sort of thing (my source being
"Paradoxes of Defence" written in 1599...i forget the authors
name...George Silvers or something.) than was earlier combat. I, and
maybe i'm just weird, tend to view heavy combat more as the combat
styles of various earlier, 'barbaric', cultures. The type of fighting
where you took a really big, sharp, heavy piece of steel and tried to
butcher the other guy. The kind of fighting that took limbs and heads
off. It's not as much a science, as it is instinctive; when he is open,
you swing. Theres not much theory involoved in that, thats natural.
> >... a knight with formal instruction in sword-play, and sword-play
> > doesnt do much when that barbarian swings his claymore at you ;p
>
> Really? And your evidence for your contention that technique means
> nothing against brute force is?
Just as an illustration: Lets say you're sitting on the field with your
nice light-weight sword, well taught in both its use, and the theory
behind that. Then, this great big Scot, who is a pretty strong fellow
(remember that ancient scottish sport of tossing around telephone poles,
caber-tossing), comes charging down the hill with a 6 foot claymore.
When he swings, he has the weight of the sword, his strength, and the
momentum from charging down the hill behind that sword. If you try and
use some fancy block or parry, its not gonna stop the claymore. Even if
you're strong enough to not simply have your arm batted away, your sword
is likely just to snap. So all your fancy technique means nothing in
this case... although you COULD just get out of the way, this would be
INSTINCT, not a theory which you would have to go to some fancy
sword-school to learn. Heavy fighting, to me, falls more in with early
hack-and-slash than with rapier fighting. It is more of an instinctual,
learn-what-works-and-repeat-it type of thing.
Again, I'm just throwing out ideas, and this is how *I* think of heavy
combat. I don't see the need for it to evolve into a martial art
requiring hours of medication and years of devotion. Its more of a
saturday after-noon, beat up your best friend kinda thing.
-Mefiston
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <199804292128...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
gore...@aol.com (Gore Crow) wrote:
> > As far as it being a martial art, it should be
> >> considered one anyway.
>
> Is SCA heavy weapons fighting an art? Sure it is. It takes skill and natural
> aptitude.
>
> Would this skill help one fight and potentially kill another? Damned skippy!
> If pursued diligently and with the correct frame of mind. That means it's
> basically martial in nature.
Rubbish. Where is the system? Outside of a few cells, there is no actual
system to it. A martial art is systematic. Furthermore, the emphasis in
SCA is NOT upon combat, it is upon sport. SCA training is optimized to
act within and take advantage of the conventions of a specific sport.
With some development, SCA combat could become a martial sport, but it is
certainly not a martial art.
Bryan J. Maloney
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> >Really? And your evidence for this?
>
> > > or won't work. As far as it being a martial art, it should be
> > considered one anyway.
> >
> > Really? And your evidence for this?
>
> Well... you seem to have all the answers.. how about "enlightening" us
> "completely ignorant" medeival reenactment "wannabes"?
Claims were made. I want evidence to back them up.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <354763...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>,
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
> not referring to modern fencing at all--i was referring to the rapier
> combat of the late 16th century, which was more of a
> thrusting/parriying/dancing-about-gaily sort of thing (my source being
> "Paradoxes of Defence" written in 1599...i forget the authors
> name...George Silvers or something.) than was earlier combat. I, and
And how many actual COMBAT MANUALS have you consulted from the period?
Reading "Paradoxes of Defence" to understand rapier combat is pretty much
identical to reading "Mein Kampf" to understand Judaism.
> Just as an illustration: Lets say you're sitting on the field with your
> nice light-weight sword, well taught in both its use, and the theory
Light-weight--just HOW light-weight, praytell? What do you think a rapier
weighs?
> behind that. Then, this great big Scot, who is a pretty strong fellow
> (remember that ancient scottish sport of tossing around telephone poles,
> caber-tossing), comes charging down the hill with a 6 foot claymore.
> When he swings, he has the weight of the sword, his strength, and the
> momentum from charging down the hill behind that sword. If you try and
> use some fancy block or parry, its not gonna stop the claymore. Even if
What if I get out of his way?
> you're strong enough to not simply have your arm batted away, your sword
> is likely just to snap. So all your fancy technique means nothing in
> this case... although you COULD just get out of the way, this would be
> INSTINCT, not a theory which you would have to go to some fancy
> sword-school to learn. Heavy fighting, to me, falls more in with early
Obviously, you are just enamored with showing off your ignorance. ENTIRE
SCHOOLS OF RAPIER were based upon elaborating upon "getting out of the
way", complete with theoretical analyses of same.
Why are you dead-set on embarassing yourself internationally with your
complete ignorance of the theory and practice of Renaissance
swordsmanship?
Zebee Johnstone
In rec.org.sca on Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:37:33 GMT
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net <mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>styles of various earlier, 'barbaric', cultures. The type of fighting
>where you took a really big, sharp, heavy piece of steel and tried to
>butcher the other guy. The kind of fighting that took limbs and heads
>off. It's not as much a science, as it is instinctive; when he is open,
>you swing. Theres not much theory involoved in that, thats natural.
HOw do yuo know when "open" is? How do you swing without opening
yourself up? Are there times when swinging is a bad idea? What
are your feet doing? Where is your balance?
If that's al; ther ewas to it, then I'd have thought SCA fighting
would go to the biggest and strongest, and that there would be no
"super fighters", but all fighters of equal size and strength would be
equal in combat.
Is this so in your experience?
>
>
>Just as an illustration: Lets say you're sitting on the field with your
>nice light-weight sword, well taught in both its use, and the theory
>behind that. Then, this great big Scot, who is a pretty strong fellow
>(remember that ancient scottish sport of tossing around telephone poles,
>caber-tossing), comes charging down the hill with a 6 foot claymore.
>When he swings, he has the weight of the sword, his strength, and the
>momentum from charging down the hill behind that sword. If you try and
>use some fancy block or parry, its not gonna stop the claymore. Even if
Why would you block it? Why wouldn't you use the footwork
you were taught as part of your training to step to one side, and
move enough to be out of his way while still in sword range to collect him
as he went past?
I've seen this move and strike a charging man technique work quite well
on both the list field and the battlefield, is there something that
makes such examples a fluke, or else only possible in SCA fighting?
I have seen enough SCA fighting that I find your statements hard to believe.
What is it about SCA fighting that means that it is an unreliable
method of deciding that technique would win over brute force in
period?
I haven't noticed that big strong blokes have an advantage
over trained small blokes for example. A big strong untrained bloke
does have an advantage over small untrained bloke, but that's not
in question.
I've seen Haos (about 5'10" and has to walk round in the shower to
get wet) easily clobber big bloke after big bloke for example,
no matter the weapon - and he was using standard sword and shield,
a pair of swords, or even a single sword. It can't have been his
size and strength, so it must have been something else. He seemed
to be using a combination of blocking and movement. He is never
hurried, never off balance, and seems to be always in the right range
to hit.
Why is that example not suitable to generalise from or to make decisions
about how it could have worked in period?
Silfren
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net
I wrote:
> Again, I'm just throwing out ideas, and this is how *I* think of heavy
> combat. I don't see the need for it to evolve into a martial art
> requiring hours of medication and years of devotion. Its more of a
> saturday after-noon, beat up your best friend kinda thing.
>
> -Mefiston
Actually, that should have said hours of meditation, not medication.
just a typo.
Jay Rudin
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
> ... i was referring to the rapier
> combat of the late 16th century, which was more of a
> thrusting/parriying/dancing-about-gaily sort of thing (my source being
> "Paradoxes of Defence" written in 1599...i forget the authors
> name...George Silvers or something.) than was earlier combat. I, and
> maybe i'm just weird, tend to view heavy combat more as the combat
> styles of various earlier, 'barbaric', cultures. The type of fighting
> where you took a really big, sharp, heavy piece of steel and tried to
> butcher the other guy. The kind of fighting that took limbs and heads
> off.
Well, that just hasn't been the SCA's experience. There are lots of
big, strong, corn-fed boys who did OK with just their power, but never
progressed beyond an average level of ability. The best fighters are
the ones who take the time to study and train, big or little.
Your view is not uncommon, or undocumented, by the way. You'll find it
in Edgerton Castle, I believe, as well as in some modern fencing books.
> It's not as much a science, as it is instinctive; when he is open,
> you swing. Theres not much theory involoved in that, thats natural.
When he is open, I should have already started my swing, because *I*
made him open up -- with the science of combat.
> Just as an illustration: Lets say you're sitting on the field with your
> nice light-weight sword, well taught in both its use, and the theory
> behind that. Then, this great big Scot, who is a pretty strong fellow
> (remember that ancient scottish sport of tossing around telephone poles,
> caber-tossing), comes charging down the hill with a 6 foot claymore.
> When he swings, he has the weight of the sword, his strength, and the
> momentum from charging down the hill behind that sword. If you try and
> use some fancy block or parry, its not gonna stop the claymore. Even if
> you're strong enough to not simply have your arm batted away, your sword
> is likely just to snap. So all your fancy technique means nothing in
> this case... although you COULD just get out of the way, this would be
> INSTINCT, not a theory which you would have to go to some fancy
> sword-school to learn. Heavy fighting, to me, falls more in with early
> hack-and-slash than with rapier fighting. It is more of an instinctual,
> learn-what-works-and-repeat-it type of thing.
First of all, let's clear away one red herring. Yes, strength is an
asset in battle. So are speed, dexterity, reach, and a clear head. But
a bigger asset than any one of these is training.
Yes, he could just get away, but that's *not* instinct. Footwork is
taught in all fencing salles, in SCA fencing and heavy weapons, in
boxing, and in all other fighting activities. Well-trained fighters can
avoid blows much better than when they were beginners, so it's not their
instinct doing it.
If the rapier fighter is in fact well-trained in the use of *both* the
rapier and the claymore, he will attempt, not to stop the claymore, but
to mildly deflect it while dodging. Then he'll use his own blade's
faster speed to throw a couple of fast shots before the wildly-swung
claymore can be brought back up. Also, he should now be uphill, since
the Scot has to fight all that lovely momentum to avoid going past.
At least, that's how I would do it. I have defeated greatsword fighters
with single sword in the lists, when they were much bigger than me. I
have beaten a glaive with dagger and buckler. I have beaten a six foot
hoe with a single dagger. I have won lists in both heavy weapons and
rapier combat.
And I have lost any number of similar combinations. I'm not great at
SCA heavy combat, merely competent. Knights and hot squires expect to
beat me if they don't make mistakes. And I'm *not* strong enough -- I'm
weaker than the average heavy fighter. But I, as a 5'7" man without
excessive strength, reach, or speed, expect to beat anybody of any size
who hasn't studied and trained.
> Again, I'm just throwing out ideas, and this is how *I* think of heavy
> combat. I don't see the need for it to evolve into a martial art
> requiring hours of medication and years of devotion. Its more of a
> saturday after-noon, beat up your best friend kinda thing.
That's fine, but recognize that other people's experiences are
different. When I'm training consistently, I win lots more than when
I'm not. If I wanted to win major tourneys, I would go to the best
trainers, and focus on it like any other subject of study -- because
hack-and-slash *is* a skill that can be learned.
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
ste...@faculty.unipissing.ca
In article <354770...@nortel.ca>,
Jay Rudin <jru...@nortel.ca> wrote:
> I have defeated greatsword fighters
> with single sword in the lists, when they were much bigger than me. I
> have beaten a glaive with dagger and buckler. I have beaten a six foot
> hoe with a single dagger.
This demonstrates an admirable attitude. You give us a good example.
Finnvarr
John Richard Seavitt
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
> Well, yeah, a big over-head chop, as taught by instinct.
Bah. Too much of that and you start finding other peoples' sharp pointy
bit sticking out of your chest.
Seriously, though, it's probably worth noting that you can teach your
period foot soldier a few basic concepts, put him in a life-threatening
situation, and figure that he'll probably manage to take the other guy
with him. It's only the higher-class that are going to have the benefit
of being able to retain and train with anybody of enough experience to
make sure only one of you hears hellcall.
John
vessekx
Tamela R. Germano wrote:
>
> In article <354763...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>,
> mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > nice light-weight sword, well taught in both its use, and the theory
> > behind that. Then, this great big Scot, who is a pretty strong fellow
> > (remember that ancient scottish sport of tossing around telephone poles,
> > caber-tossing), comes charging down the hill with a 6 foot claymore.
> > When he swings, he has the weight of the sword, his strength, and the
> > momentum from charging down the hill behind that sword. If you try and
> > use some fancy block or parry, its not gonna stop the claymore. Even if
> > you're strong enough to not simply have your arm batted away, your sword
> > is likely just to snap. So all your fancy technique means nothing in
> > this case... although you COULD just get out of the way, this would be
> > INSTINCT, not a theory which you would have to go to some fancy
> > sword-school to learn.
>
> teach) timeing, tempo, and distance. You need to learn to use what nature
> has given you. In your above, I would cross-step back, wait for the blade
> to hit the ground in front of me, and poke for the soft parts, then jump
> back to see whats next.
I've read down a rather long list of posts so far, and seem to be
missing something (either that or you all are). Where did he ever say
that it was an overhand swing (quite possibly the WORST type of swing to
make simply because it's a very easy thing to avoid since most people
move faster to the side than backwards. On top of that, you'd have to
wrench the blade out of the ground.
In all likelyhood, someone dumb enough to charge down the hill and open
the fight with an all-out unguarded swing in single combat would never
have survived any decent period of training. Now, if you had a few
score of your buddies coming up behind you, the charge and swing method
becomes a bit more effective in that if the guy in question goes after
you as you charge past, he's quite possibly opening himself up to an
attack from one of your buds as HE goes charging past. It's much harder
to dodge/deflect 4 full force on target attacks than one, and you'd only
have to mess up once before all the technique in the world wouldn't
matter (ie: after the swing connects and you find yourself looking at
your insides on the outside). Thats not to say that alot of training
and a good bit of technique wouldn't VASTLY increase your chances of
survival (as would some buds of your own), but keep in mind that that
'barbarian with the big sword' didn't just pick up that piece of steel
for the first time either.
- Theo
--
'An harm it none, do what you Will,' is an ideal.
At times it is necessary to take the path of least
harm because taking no path at would cause more harm.
David Friedman
In article <35479D...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>,
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
>A real claymore
>(with sufficient momentum) might do a little more than jar you...(like,
>for instance, cleave straight through the shield, and as a consequence
>cause you bodily harm).
It might. Do you have any evidence that a real claymore could go through a
shield? You ought to be able to set up a reasonable attempt at the
experiment pretty safely.
I haven't done it, but I have chopped wood. My guess is that a reasonably
solid shield would stop the sword--given that a shield, unlike a block of
wood, isn't supported when you hit it, so can absorb a good deal of the
blow. In any case, I don't think you want to base your conclusions with
such confidence on your guess about such things, without some evidence.
>You can block blows in sca fighting that
>wouldve been significantly harder to block back then. Also, that little
>clause in the marshalls handbook about not using excessive force? THEY
>didnt have that clause.
I've fought lots of people who didn't "have that clause"--indeed, my
impression is that it is a fairly recent development in the rules.
>When the strong man swings with full
>force, a weaker mans block loses most of its efectiveness. (I would
>test this theory, but i dont know of any weak (skilled or unskilled) men
>who feel like coming under a blow of a real, sharpened claymore
>delivered at full force... ;p)
But the effect of sharpened swords was your earlier point--and the
question of whether a sharpened sword would cut through a shield is one
you can test without having a human being on the other side of the shield.
The question of whether the impact from a full force blow will knock aside
the block is one we can test using rattan swords--and have.
I think the reason some people are getting irritated at you is that you
are offering guesses, unsupported by any evidence at all, as if they were
facts--as if the thread were simply a talking game of "I'll pretend my
guesses are right and you pretend yours are." But lots of us have real
evidence on at least part of the question. We've fought people bigger than
we are, some of us have read the period manuals, and we are therefore
unwilling to treat "here is how it happened in a movie" or "I'm sure this
would happen" as if were evidence.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
"No man is secure in his life, liberty or property
while the legislature is in session"
Jay Rudin
"Martial art" is not a well-defined term. There is no point in deciding
if SCA fighting is a martial art; we could define the phrase to include
it or not.
A martial art is a skill based on fighting; therefore SCA fighting is a
martial art.
A martial art is the skill of fighting, with no allowances for rules,
safety, or other goals; therefore SCA fighting is *not* a martial art.
A martial art is a skill used in war; therefore SCA fighting is not a
martial art, but First Aid is.
Isn't this fun?
May I suggest we quit playing word games and perhaps instead debate the
nature of SCA fighting?
Describing teaches us about the thing described. Categorizing teaches
us about how we make categories.
John Scott
<sorry to jump in on Bryans reply, but I haven't seen the original yet.
On the whole, I agree with Bryan.>
> In article <354661...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>,
> mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Im not saying theres NO technique involved... or that there shouldnt be
> > any... But a strong peasant with a big cudgel stands a pretty good
> > chance on a weak knight who is well-versed in the techniques and
> > philosophies behind sword-play...
I spent about 6 years studying aikido, which is based heavily on a
particular school of kenjutsu, amongst some other stuff.
Ever heard of ma-ai?
The translations vary, but it's often translated as "killing distance".
Your ma-ai is the distance at which you can take one step and strike your
opponant. If he's outside your ma-ai, you cannot kill him. If you're
outside his, he can't kill you.
Obvious?
His Ma-ai depends on a whole heap of factors - your opponants size, what
weapon he's using and so on, but with knowledge of this
technique/philosophy, the knight is _always_ going to be untouchable by
the peasant, simply by staying outside his ma-ai.
Some people pick up on the concept of ma-ai really quickly. Others have
to have it explained to them over and over again because they don't
instinctively understand that peoples ma-ai can be different, or even can
change.
The western fencing masters understood ma-ai. They didn't call it that,
but they understood it, and they taught it, and they wrote about it. Just
like a whole lot of other martial arts concepts that you decry.
And, finally, on the subject of Rob Roy. The reason Liam Neeson won the
fight at the end was because he was the hero of the film. He'd have won
had he been armed with a slippery haddock. The way he fought, he should
have lost, but if he had, the film would have been called "Poncy English
Twat" and all the scottish wannabies would have cried.
John
The University and I agree on a lot, but not necessarily this ...
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> Light-weight--just HOW light-weight, praytell? What do you think a rapier
> weighs?
Well, if it makes a difference, i own a very nice hand-and-a-half
broadsword, and i consider it fairly 'lightweight'. I can swing it in
precise, controlled movements, without more than a minimum of exertion.
A rapier is lighter than my broadsword, unless you have some kind of
freakishly large one, and likely to have a much better balance to boot.
I would call that light-weight.
>
> What if I get out of his way?
If you would reply to my post as a whole, instead of selectively, I
mentioned that. And as i said, its a fairly INSTINCTIVE move to make.
If you have to take classes for years to learn that its a fairly good
idea to step out from under a falling piece of sharpened steel... well,
to continue this sentence would require being rude, which is something
some of us try to refrain from...
>
> Why are you dead-set on embarassing yourself internationally with your
> complete ignorance of the theory and practice of Renaissance
> swordsmanship?
Why are you so dead-set in answering everything in as rude or degrading
a tone as you possibly can. If you have different views, i welcome
them. If you have proof contradicring my views, well thats fine too
(you whos most common reply is 'and your proof?' havent really offered
much more than me... I enjoy intellectual debate, but merely saying
'prove it' and then trying to demean people isnt intellectual debate,
it's making an ass of yourself.
-Mefiston
Tamela R. Germano
> How long those generations might be I don't know, but the SCA has developed
> very few great teachers, and only one with vast influence -- Paul of
> Bellatrix.
>
> Finnvarr
Yep, I have been able to take some instruction from Paul, and use what
I was able to make part of my game. I left the list one afternoon after my
second "death". I had been using my glave, and as I walked off, Paul
looked at me and said, "It has edges you know." Color Vinnie deeply
chagrined. :-)
Sir Vincenzo di Calabria KSCA, West aka Sir "Yo! Vinnie!"
Dino in Reno
Tamela R. Germano
> Just as an example (yeah, i know hollywood makes stuff up all the time,
> but this isnt too unrealistic)... At the end of Rob Roy, the big duel...
> Rob Roy is using a larfe, long, heavy sword, and fighting with hack and
> slash tactics. The other guy is using lots of frills and fncy footwork.
> We see which one gets cut in half, and which one doesnt.
He forgot lesson #1, Don't play with your dinner.
> -Mefiston
Tamela R. Germano
In article <354763...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>,
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
> Just as an illustration: Lets say you're sitting on the field with your
> nice light-weight sword, well taught in both its use, and the theory
> behind that. Then, this great big Scot, who is a pretty strong fellow
> (remember that ancient scottish sport of tossing around telephone poles,
> caber-tossing), comes charging down the hill with a 6 foot claymore.
> When he swings, he has the weight of the sword, his strength, and the
> momentum from charging down the hill behind that sword. If you try and
> use some fancy block or parry, its not gonna stop the claymore. Even if
> you're strong enough to not simply have your arm batted away, your sword
> is likely just to snap. So all your fancy technique means nothing in
> this case... although you COULD just get out of the way, this would be
> INSTINCT, not a theory which you would have to go to some fancy
> sword-school to learn.
I don't know about the rest of the fencing world, but I was taught (and
teach) timeing, tempo, and distance. You need to learn to use what nature
has given you. In your above, I would cross-step back, wait for the blade
to hit the ground in front of me, and poke for the soft parts, then jump
back to see whats next.
>Heavy fighting, to me, falls more in with early
> hack-and-slash than with rapier fighting. It is more of an instinctual,
> learn-what-works-and-repeat-it type of thing.
He he, tell that to Paul or Radnor :-)
>
> Again, I'm just throwing out ideas, and this is how *I* think of heavy
> combat. I don't see the need for it to evolve into a martial art
> requiring hours of medication and years of devotion. Its more of a
> saturday after-noon, beat up your best friend kinda thing.
>
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Why is that example not suitable to generalise from or to make decisions
> about how it could have worked in period?
>
> Silfren
Theres one major thing that sets sca fighting apart from period combat.
Sca weapons are made in the most accurate way that safety permits. They
didnt have that problem to worry about...they made them in the best way
in order to NOT be safe. No matter how similar in weight or balance, a
sharpened steel claymore will act differently than a rattan great
sword. For instance, if you stick a shield over your head, the rattan
greatsword might jar ya a bit, but it wont score a hit. A real claymore
(with sufficient momentum) might do a little more than jar you...(like,
for instance, cleave straight through the shield, and as a consequence
cause you bodily harm). You can block blows in sca fighting that
wouldve been significantly harder to block back then. Also, that little
clause in the marshalls handbook about not using excessive force? THEY
didnt have that clause. That excessive force is what gave strength an
edge. A relatively weak man can block a strong mans hits, so long as
that man isnt swinging hard. When the strong man swings with full
force, a weaker mans block loses most of its efectiveness. (I would
test this theory, but i dont know of any weak (skilled or unskilled) men
who feel like coming under a blow of a real, sharpened claymore
delivered at full force... ;p)
Just a thought...
-Mefiston
McLean1382
In article <bjm10-29049...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>, bj...@cornell.edu
(Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
> SCA training is optimized to
>act within and take advantage of the conventions of a specific sport.
And Kendo/Kenjitsu training is optimized to act within and take advantage its
own specific conventions. Are you saying that the presence of conventions, or a
tendency to optimize techniques to work well within those conventions, prevents
a field of martial study from being a martial art?
Galleron
Zebee Johnstone
In rec.org.sca on Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:46:41 GMT
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net <mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> Why is that example not suitable to generalise from or to make decisions
>> about how it could have worked in period?
>Theres one major thing that sets sca fighting apart from period combat.
>Sca weapons are made in the most accurate way that safety permits. They
>didnt have that problem to worry about...they made them in the best way
>in order to NOT be safe. No matter how similar in weight or balance, a
>sharpened steel claymore will act differently than a rattan great
>sword. For instance, if you stick a shield over your head, the rattan
If it hits, yes. I dunno if anyone has done tests with sharp
swords and linden wood shields (say) to see if they are cloven
in two or not. As there are period sources that say a
fighter might need 3 shields, they clearly don't last as long as
SCA ones. How long is long enough in a fight with a single
opponent?
>edge. A relatively weak man can block a strong mans hits, so long as
>that man isnt swinging hard. When the strong man swings with full
>force, a weaker mans block loses most of its efectiveness. (I would
>test this theory, but i dont know of any weak (skilled or unskilled) men
>who feel like coming under a blow of a real, sharpened claymore
>delivered at full force... ;p)
Hmm.. I *have* seen someone block an unsharpened steel sword blow
at full force with a shield. Also an axe. Didn't seem to
be impossible to do. The axe didn't get caught in the shield
as I was expecting.
How much difference would there be in felt force between a ratan
sword swung at full force and the thinner edge of a sword?
I think you'd be able to find someone to hold a shield while you
hit it aas hard as you can with a 2 handed rattan sword, and
as hard as you can with a steel sword and talk about the
differences.
I believe there is a group in Brisbane who recreate Wars of the Roses
era fully armoured full speed full strength fighting with
steel weapons. They hit hard enough to dent their armour. They
find technique invaluable.
How much is "full force"? I know that I cannot punch as hard as
my very much smaller and lighter Australian/Malaysian friend - he
has been doing Tai Chi since he was 6 - his technique can easily put
more power into a blow than my strength can. (or a large man's
strength.. heavy bags do not lie). He can also *take* more
powerful blows via use of technique. He weighs all of 8 stone dripping wet
(130lbs or so) but can hold a kicking pad and not be unbalanced or
knocked over by a blow that had me (much heavier) or another person
(*much* bigger and heavier - 6' and over 200lbs) reeling.
So I am still unconvinced that technique is unimportant, and that
size and strength are irrestisible.
I expect that if someone does *not* have correct and usable technique,
that size and strength will be important. Which is of course
why I want correct technique.
Silfren
Zebee Johnstone
In rec.org.sca on Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:45:14 -0400
vessekx <ves...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>to dodge/deflect 4 full force on target attacks than one, and you'd only
>have to mess up once before all the technique in the world wouldn't
>matter (ie: after the swing connects and you find yourself looking at
>your insides on the outside). Thats not to say that alot of training
>and a good bit of technique wouldn't VASTLY increase your chances of
>survival (as would some buds of your own), but keep in mind that that
>'barbarian with the big sword' didn't just pick up that piece of steel
>for the first time either.
The poster postulating the barbarian has been putting forward
the hypothesis that training and thought are not required
and were not done in period - that size and strength were
what determined things, not technique, that it was all hack
and slash, rather than footwork, movement, balance, focus,
bladework, etc.
As I read it, he was postulating a one on one attack - one charging
Scotsman vs one fencer, no buddies involved.
Silfren
Bellatrix2
Greetings,
Just a comment.
>Kendo, and Kenjitsu (which is much less frequently taught nowadays) are
>highly formalized martial arts that depend heavily on everyone playing the
>same game.
I studied some Kenjitsu. Our Master once said..."Kendo teaches you how to use
a Bamboo stick, Kenjitsu teaches you how to usea sword (just uses a bamboo
stick to keep the students around long enough to learn how to use the sword)."
I would tend to agree. I have found that basics of just about any Martial Art
tend to translate very well. Those basics that teach movement, balance and
timing are really the best. FOr me Kenjitsu translated very well, Arnis and
Escrima did very well. Most Karate basics and alot of Kung Fu basics translate
well also. I find also that the begining of the Sabre and fencing training I
learned many years ago all help me. If you want to extend the point, you can
also bring in the basics of just about any sport willl allow you to teach or
learn when translated to SCA fighting.
ALoha
Stephan
Bellatrix2
Greetings,
Couldn't resist...
>> What I'm trying to say is, adding more emphasis on technique and
>> thinking to a sport in which strength could and often would over power
>> finesse isnt really a logical step.
I suppose that is why football linemen don't learn techinique...just use brute
strength...
Ask Earl Glen from Caid, He is an offensive lineman for the Kansas City, Chiefs
he might be able to tell you.
I also suppose that ids why wrestleres don't learn technique either...
hehehe
I guess that ends the brute strengths vs technique arguement....
Aloha
Stephan
Bellatrix2
Greetings All,
>Who feels that one should be a marshal before teaching?
I do not...The marshallate and teaching have nothing to do with each other.
They both deal with the same thing, just different aspects. This does not mean
you can't be both, but there should not be a requirement to be a marshal before
teaching.
I might entertain the idea of required marshal triang to be a fighter, but that
is adifferent arguement.
>Should teaching be a seperate position than marshal
Yes
Stephan
Bellatrix2
Greetings,
>We don't go
>into the theory of
>> why this blow works and that type doesn't
You are completely mistaken. Almost every advanced level fighter can and does
teach this when talking to fighters and others or teaching.
Stephan
Ken Mondschein
Zebee Johnstone (ze...@zip.com.au) wrote:
: In rec.org.sca on 28 Apr 1998 21:34:15 GMT
: k...@bu.edu <k...@bu.edu> wrote:
: >
: > Well, part of it is that you need to have an experienced teacher to
: >show you. Richard Alvarez is in Houston, Adam Crown is in Ithaca, and Ramon
: >Martinez is in New York. Will Franz is also in New York. I may have skipped
: >some from out West, but they're there, especially around L.A.
: So if you have no teacher of great experience, it is impossible to
: approach SCA fighting as anything other than a sport?
It's impossible to approach SCA fighting as anything but a sport, if
you want to be at all effective at it. It has conventional rules that can be
used to your advantage if you manipulate them (i.e. blocking with your
hand).
: IS it a definition of a martial art that it must be taught by a teacher
: of great experience? Most eastern martial art philosophies
: would imply such.
Well, they tend to be authoratatively taught, if that's what you
mean...
: Are those of us who don't live in the US condemned to sport fighting only?
Certainly not! Europe must be crawling with classical fencing
masters! What you need, at the very least, is a very thorough background in
Western fencing, plus some training in languages and eastern martial arts that
are less devolved into sports, and it is quite possible, after a few years of
study, to do a decent job at interpreting the old techniques. Terry Brown did
a credible job in "English Martial Arts"...
: >
: > All of these guys are, if not fencing masters, experienced
: >instructors. They're also the heirs of a tradition that has not deviated from
: >its from its martial focus from its inception in the Middle Ages.
: How does their expertise relate to SCA fighting specifically? Is
: one fighting martial art the same as another?
It doesn't.
: So., how can SCa fighting be taught and approached as a martial art?
Learn arnis!
--
Ken Mondschein
Work in Progress
Graduate Student, History Department, Boston University
Ken Mondschein
Chuck Allen (las...@cyberback.com) wrote:
: Are you wanting to have to learn various names for certain blows? Would it make it
: more acceptable to you if you had to learn a foreign language or just learn to "parrot"
: the name of the blow to your teacher? That seems to be the main difference in the way
: most martial arts are taught as compared to SCA combat. We don't go into the theory of
: why this blow works and that type doesn't; we just let you "get into armour and hit
: pells or people". That is the best way for our system to teach a person just what will
: or won't work. As far as it being a martial art, it should be considered one anyway.
: We just don't rent a gym and charge fees to teach people our art.
I can go to a bar and spill beer on Hell's Angels and learn how to
fight *really quickly*, but that's not a martial art, either. A martial art is
a *systematized* method of self-defense. So, yes, learning and practicing
techniques with names is important. As for the rest, well, the fees are how
our instructors feed their families.
Ken Mondschein
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
: Just to throw a few ideas out... i disagree with this whole martial art
: thread. When i think of period fighting, i see two things:
: 1. The artsy, finesse-style fighting with rapiers as used in the later
: years, and depicted in rapier-fighting in the SCA.
: 2. The heavy, basically hack-and-slash fighting used from the dawn of
: time up until the late middle ages (when it was replaced by #1)
: If you look back to when heavy-fighting was in its hey-day, not everyone
: was a knight with formal instruction in sword-play, and sword-play
: doesnt do much when that barbarian swings his claymore at you ;p
: What I'm trying to say is, adding more emphasis on technique and
: thinking to a sport in which strength could and often would over power
: finesse isnt really a logical step.
This artifical dichotomy is *right out* of Edgerton Castle. His
thinking, and that of his 19th century cronies, has been informing the West
for over 100 years-- though the ideas is 200, nay, 300, 400!-- years old.
I disproved Castle in a recent paper I wrote. Medieval swordplay was
far from crude; it was, however, not fencing.
Ken Mondschein
: >
: > Why? What is it about talkiing, thinking, unarmoured movement,
: > learning about balance, movement, and attitude that doesn't work
: > in SCA fighting? Is SCA fighting so different from other weapons
: > styles like classical or even sport fencing?
: Yes. it is. Heavy fighting, with everything from maces and axes, to
: broadswords, to claymores and pole arms is VERY different from fencing.
: In fencing, agility and speed count more than strength. You dont block
: a thrust, you parry it or dodge it. Technique is very important in a
: sport like this. In your traditional broadsword fight, ya tend to move
: less, and block more. Basically, ya stand there while he hits you, and
: then hit him back. Strength is more important than agility. And if ya
: doubt what i say, as proof i offer the armor. Do you think the Scots
: sat around talking thinking and learning about attitude before a war?
: No... they grabbed their kilts and claymores, yelled really loud, and
: hacked at their enemies. (They did practice feats of strength--such as
: the illustrious scottish sport of tossing telephone poles about) Did
: they have specific moves? Well, yeah, a big over-head chop, as taught by
: instinct. Heavy-fighting is what it implies. taking heavy weapons and
: trying to hack, bash, chop, and maim your opponent. And it's great!
: -Mefiston
This is the symptom of the problem: people are unfamiliar with what
Medieval swordplay was like, so they assume it was crude based on our
cultural biases and what unskilled SCA rattan-stuff is like...
Ken Mondschein
Bryan J. Maloney (bj...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <354665...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>,
: mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
: > sport like this. In your traditional broadsword fight, ya tend to move
: > less, and block more. Basically, ya stand there while he hits you, and
: > then hit him back. Strength is more important than agility. And if ya
: Really, and what is your historical evidence for this? Please, do
: enlighten us. Tell that to Dr. Jeffrey Singman of the University of
: Michigan, who is translating and analysing a 13th-century broadsword
: manual that has a LOT of moving around in the combat.
I showed you that one, right, Bryan?
: Please cite some real historical facts rather than "Masters of the Universe".
Four words for ya, baby...
"I HAVE THE POWER!"
Now play nice...
shayne...@health.gov.au
> combat of the late 16th century, which was more of a
> thrusting/parriying/dancing-about-gaily sort of thing (my source being
> "Paradoxes of Defence" written in 1599...i forget the authors
> name...George Silvers or something.) than was earlier combat.
That's what happens when you read a period source without understanding it.
George Silver was a Master in the London Swordmasters Guild, "Masters of
Defence". This guild had a sole right to teach the sword in london under
Henry VIII, but this was not renewed under Elizabeth I. The guild's income
(and influence) was threatened by the new "Italian" masters. Paradoxes of
Defence is a huge tirade against these people. The attachment, published
a few years later gives his method of fighting - a rather more
cut-and-thrust method than Rapier.
>[.....]
> Heavy fighting, to me, falls more in with early
> hack-and-slash than with rapier fighting. It is more of an instinctual,
> learn-what-works-and-repeat-it type of thing.
You make the classic mistake of Mixing Heavy (a military, war based combat)
with Rapier (a Civilian, unarmoured combat). That doesn't mean that Military
combat was untutored. People have already noted the existance of books on
fighting for military combat from the 13th C. It does mean that you can't
directly compare the two without giving the individual point of comparison.
> Again, I'm just throwing out ideas, and this is how *I* think of heavy
> combat. I don't see the need for it to evolve into a martial art
> requiring hours of medication and years of devotion. Its more of a
> saturday after-noon, beat up your best friend kinda thing.
The Martial Art is there to be picked up. A method of approaching perfection
of skill in Heavy combat. Borrow a bit from here and there, Study motion,
study the past masters. But it requires work and devotion and a whole lot of
other things that don't align with the "getting out and having a bash" crowd.
Francois Henri Guyon.
John Scott
> Just as an illustration: Lets say you're sitting on the field with your
> nice light-weight sword, well taught in both its use, and the theory
> behind that. Then, this great big Scot, who is a pretty strong fellow
> (remember that ancient scottish sport of tossing around telephone poles,
> caber-tossing), comes charging down the hill with a 6 foot claymore.
> When he swings, he has the weight of the sword, his strength, and the
> momentum from charging down the hill behind that sword. If you try and
> use some fancy block or parry, its not gonna stop the claymore. Even if
> you're strong enough to not simply have your arm batted away, your sword
> is likely just to snap. So all your fancy technique means nothing in
> this case... although you COULD just get out of the way, this would be
> INSTINCT, not a theory which you would have to go to some fancy
> sword-school to learn. Heavy fighting, to me, falls more in with early
> hack-and-slash than with rapier fighting. It is more of an instinctual,
> learn-what-works-and-repeat-it type of thing.
>
There are other fencing manuals than Paradoxes of Defence. Most of the
ones I've read mention _voiding_ - getting out of the way
_whilst_still_being_in_a_position_to_attack_. Most peoples untrained
reaction on being attacked is to back off - it takes training to get them
to step forwards, or forwards and sideways, or sideways instead.
That's true of both heavy and light combat.
Gore Crow
bjm10 wrote:
>Rubbish. Where is the system? Outside of a few cells, there is no actual
>system to it. A martial art is systematic.
Rubbish on your rubbish. Martial means Military. An art is a skill for which
there is no formulae which guarentees success. Where is the presence of a
system implied? And for that matter....SCA fighting has many "systems" i.e.
Oldcastle Gunslinger Polearm. Tell me that the Bellatrix fighting style isn't
a "system". If he can teach it successfully there MUST be a system to it.
Likewise, the Oldcastle style is very distinct (and successful). A commonality
of style which is apparent, and distinct, not to mention regularly produces
ass-kickers on the tourny field IS systematic. Natch.
>
>With some development, SCA combat could become a martial sport, but it is
>certainly not a martial art.
A very rudimentary and unregimented martial art it may be, but it most
certainly IS a martial art.
Vivat Trimaris, vivat The Dream
Ullam
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <199804300220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mclea...@aol.com (McLean1382) wrote:
> And Kendo/Kenjitsu training is optimized to act within and take advantage its
> own specific conventions. Are you saying that the presence of
conventions, or a
> tendency to optimize techniques to work well within those conventions,
prevents
> a field of martial study from being a martial art?
The optimization moves it from martial art to martial sport--if those
conventions are sport conventions.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <35478B...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>,
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> >
> > Light-weight--just HOW light-weight, praytell? What do you think a rapier
> > weighs?
>
> Well, if it makes a difference, i own a very nice hand-and-a-half
> broadsword, and i consider it fairly 'lightweight'. I can swing it in
> precise, controlled movements, without more than a minimum of exertion.
> A rapier is lighter than my broadsword, unless you have some kind of
> freakishly large one, and likely to have a much better balance to boot.
> I would call that light-weight.
And how much do you think a rapier weighs? You still didn't answer the
question.
>
> >
> > What if I get out of his way?
>
> If you would reply to my post as a whole, instead of selectively, I
> mentioned that. And as i said, its a fairly INSTINCTIVE move to make.
> If you have to take classes for years to learn that its a fairly good
> idea to step out from under a falling piece of sharpened steel... well,
> to continue this sentence would require being rude, which is something
> some of us try to refrain from...
Disprove the existence of Saviolo. Disprove the existence of Fabris.
Disprove the existence of their schools predicated upon the systematic
practice and theoretical study of the use of movement as a defense.
>
>
> >
> > Why are you dead-set on embarassing yourself internationally with your
> > complete ignorance of the theory and practice of Renaissance
> > swordsmanship?
>
> Why are you so dead-set in answering everything in as rude or degrading
> a tone as you possibly can. If you have different views, i welcome
> them. If you have proof contradicring my views, well thats fine too
> (you whos most common reply is 'and your proof?' havent really offered
Okay, here's some proof:
Saviolo and Fabris--that's proof of my contention regarding the systematic
use of movement as the primary means of defense. Get their manuals and
read them. Both of these Renaissance rapier manuals are available.
Now, prove your contention that these systems did not exist.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <j.f.scott-290...@news.brighton.ac.uk>,
j.f....@bton.ac.uk (John Scott) wrote:
> The translations vary, but it's often translated as "killing distance".
> Your ma-ai is the distance at which you can take one step and strike your
> opponant. If he's outside your ma-ai, you cannot kill him. If you're
> outside his, he can't kill you.
What is very interesting is the George Silver describes this very same
concept in his Brief Instructions--he calls it "measure", if I recall
aright.
Plus ça change....
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <6i7vok$mtk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cu...@att.com wrote:
> student. While it is not possible or suggested to add real money to the SCA
> world, I think the SCA students owe far more respect to their teachers than I
> usually see given out. While I admit that SCA should keep a light and
Hear! Hear! Definite harrumph of assent.
> As final questions: Who feels that one should be a marshal before teaching?
> Should teaching be a seperate position than marshal since a marshal is only
> trained as a safety officer?
I go along with those other SCA fighters who would say that the two posts
should be kept separate. A marshall has enough headaches just being a
marshall.
Bryan J. Maloney
The overhand swing while running down a hill...
Isn't that the technique a young Tuchux used to break his own collarbone
several years back? I can't recall the details.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <DDFr-29049...@ddfr.vip.best.com>, DD...@best.com (David
Friedman) wrote:
> evidence on at least part of the question. We've fought people bigger than
> we are, some of us have read the period manuals, and we are therefore
> unwilling to treat "here is how it happened in a movie" or "I'm sure this
> would happen" as if were evidence.
For example, in His Grace Cariadoc's case, most men (and many female
fighters) are bigger than he is--but that appears to give him no handicap
upon the heavy lists.
Kathleen Marshall
Forwarded from the An Tir Steps -- would some kind gentle please make sure
this gets cross-posted to the West Kingdom list?
In service,
Saewynn Silfrhrafn
Herald at Large
*******************************************************************
Unto those present on these steppes, does Master Angus McClure send
greetings.
Know ye now that IT DOES NOT MATTER what Corpora or An Tir Law may say
about all who make an attempt at the appearance of a pre 1700's persona
being entitled to attend society events, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE RESERVATIONS
for Egils this year, you WILL NOT be allowed on site. DO NOT even attempt
to show up. This cap was NOT set by anyone in the society. This is NOT a
society, principality, baronial or autocrat decision. This is an Oregon
State Parks decision. This falls under the modern law theory which
supercedes ALL society laws.
If you show up without your confirmation card, your first encounter will
be with the rent-a-cop and you will be asked to wait until he has time to
look you up. If you DO NOT have reservations, you will be turned away
right then and there no matter your title, rank, or standing in the SCA.
The Oregon State Park ranger in charge of this park will be on site or one
of his personnel will be at the registration table with a clicker counter.
The park ranger is very serious about not going over the limit.
If you DO show up and DO NOT have reservations again, YOU WILL BE TOLD TO
LEAVE. If it becomes too much of a hassle and too many individuals show
up without reservations, the entire event may be in jeopardy. It would be
bad enough to be asked to leave personally, imagine how you would feel if
you were the one individual that caused them to shut down the site and
send all 1200 PRE-REGISTERED people home.
Please be considerate of those that have worked hard to set up this event
and those that thought ahead, planned for the event and got their
reservations in. I am sorry that we can not all attend and play together
this year. We are hoping to find a site that will be suitable for all
next year.
In service I remain,
Master Angus McClure
An Tir Kingdom Seneschal
--
Never knock on Death's door; ring the doorbell and
run (he hates that).
Ken Mondschein
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
: No, i do understand that there's a great deal of difference, in both
: weapon construction, and how you used it. The modern foils are the end
: result of what i consider the complete DEvolution of the sword; i was
: not referring to modern fencing at all--i was referring to the rapier
: combat of the late 16th century, which was more of a
: thrusting/parriying/dancing-about-gaily sort of thing (my source being
: "Paradoxes of Defence" written in 1599...i forget the authors
: name...George Silvers or something.) than was earlier combat. I, and
: maybe i'm just weird, tend to view heavy combat more as the combat
: styles of various earlier, 'barbaric', cultures. The type of fighting
: where you took a really big, sharp, heavy piece of steel and tried to
: butcher the other guy. The kind of fighting that took limbs and heads
: off. It's not as much a science, as it is instinctive; when he is open,
: you swing. Theres not much theory involoved in that, thats natural.
George Silver was an Englishman who disapproved of his countrymen
attempting to use a foreign weapon that they were unskilled in and getting
skewered for it. The basis of Silver's broadsword fight, however, is the same
as that of the rapier fight, or modern fencing bout: Time, distance, and
prudence. It was the fine points they failed to understand, like how to use a
thrusting weapon safely.
Fencing has never "devolved," though it has mutated into a sport. If
anything, (classical) fencing has become more refined through long experience.
: Again, I'm just throwing out ideas, and this is how *I* think of heavy
: combat. I don't see the need for it to evolve into a martial art
: requiring hours of medication and years of devotion. Its more of a
: saturday after-noon, beat up your best friend kinda thing.
But don't be informed by "Conan the Barbarian." At least read a basic
foil-fencing manual. The principles are the same as for a claymore.
Doug Browne
>As final questions: Who feels that one should be a marshal before teaching?
>Should teaching be a seperate position than marshal since a marshal is only
>trained as a safety officer?
YES! I am a marshal. I have tought fighting, but there are better
teachers in my group. My original teacher (hi, Tule!) was not a marshal. My
understaning of the rules, at least here in the Middle, is that the knight
marshal is responsible to see that teaching gets done -- not responsible to
do the teaching. There's a huge difference, thankfully.
Vlad
Ken Mondschein
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
: I wrote:
:
: > combat. I don't see the need for it to evolve into a martial art
: > requiring hours of medication and years of devotion. Its more of a
: > saturday after-noon, beat up your best friend kinda thing.
: > -Mefiston
: Actually, that should have said hours of meditation, not medication.
: just a typo.
Sure it wasn't a Freudian slip?
Ken Mondschein
McLean1382 (mclea...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <bjm10-29049...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>, bj...@cornell.edu
: (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
: > SCA training is optimized to
: >act within and take advantage of the conventions of a specific sport.
: And Kendo/Kenjitsu training is optimized to act within and take advantage its
: own specific conventions. Are you saying that the presence of conventions, or a
: tendency to optimize techniques to work well within those conventions, prevents
: a field of martial study from being a martial art?
: Galleron
The latter, I should think. Though I've always seen kendo as more of a
"sport," since it aims at competition.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net writes:
>Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
doing a bit of cut and paste to rearrange...
>> Why are you dead-set on embarassing yourself internationally with your
>> complete ignorance of the theory and practice of Renaissance
>> swordsmanship?
>Why are you so dead-set in answering everything in as rude or degrading
>a tone as you possibly can. If you have different views, i welcome
>them. If you have proof contradicring my views, well thats fine too
>(you whos most common reply is 'and your proof?' havent really offered
>much more than me... I enjoy intellectual debate, but merely saying
>'prove it' and then trying to demean people isnt intellectual debate,
>it's making an ass of yourself.
To quote another poster on this thread:
DD...@best.com wrote:
>I think the reason some people are getting irritated at you is that you
>are offering guesses, unsupported by any evidence at all, as if they were
>facts
As an example:
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net writes:
>Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>> Light-weight--just HOW light-weight, praytell? What do you think a
>> rapier weighs?
>Well, if it makes a difference, i own a very nice hand-and-a-half
>broadsword, and i consider it fairly 'lightweight'. I can swing it in
>precise, controlled movements, without more than a minimum of exertion.
>A rapier is lighter than my broadsword, unless you have some kind of
>freakishly large one, and likely to have a much better balance to boot.
>I would call that light-weight.
Most rapiers weighed roughly about what most broadswords weighed, i.e
2-3 lbs., so if you consider most broadswords to be light-weight then,
a) you are right, rapiers are lightwt.
b) you have, IMO, a strange notion of how to define lightwt..
Now, my question is what you consider to be a heavy sword.
Bryan J. Maloney
> : Actually, that should have said hours of meditation, not medication.
> : just a typo.
>
>
> Sure it wasn't a Freudian slip?
Idunno--I now that I sometimes stagger into the door at home muttering
"ibuprophen"...
David Friedman
>The translations vary, but it's often translated as "killing distance".
>Your ma-ai is the distance at which you can take one step and strike your
>opponant. If he's outside your ma-ai, you cannot kill him. If you're
>outside his, he can't kill you.
I remember, a very long time ago, doing slow work with Duke Paul with
great sword--in an empty parking garage, as best I remember. He was very
lucky. I kept almost hitting him.
David/Cariadoc
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
"No man is secure in his life, liberty or property
while the legislature is in session"
cu...@att.com
In article <6ia8h2$q9f$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
"Doug Browne" <dbr...@indiana.edu> wrote:
My
> understaning of the rules, at least here in the Middle, is that the knight
> marshal is responsible to see that teaching gets done -- not responsible to
> do the teaching. There's a huge difference, thankfully.
>
> Vlad
Interesting and I certainly agree. One topic that has come up at the fencing
practice is: There are currently 7 marshals at the practice. One of them is
the local marshal (marshal in charge), the other 6 are marshals at large.
The way that we work it is we let the marshals at large teach whomever they
wish and the marshal in charge is responsible for the training of whoever is
left (with great power comes great responsibility). It has never been a
problem for us since the different teachers have different expectations of
the students. I teach at a high level and I expect a lot of effort on the
part of my personal students including conditioning and propper drilling on
their own. If a fencer doesn't wish to put that much effort into it that's
fine by me, but I don't feel a need to waste my valuable teaching time when
I've got dozens of students who do meet my expectations. We have never had
someone who couldn't get along with one of the teachers at the practice, but
some folks feel that this style is too elitist/competitive.
Think back to those lovely Saturday morning kung-fu flicks... the ancient
master would usualy have a student sweep a floor or the like for the first
year. While I'm not that demented yet, I will ask that a student be able to
hold a lunge for 5 minutes or the like before I agree to take them as a
personal student.
Christopher J Umbs
Wolgemuth Andrew G
John Scott (j.f....@bton.ac.uk) wrote:
: On the whole, I agree with Bryan.>
Frightening, isn't it? :-)
: The western fencing masters understood ma-ai. They didn't call it that,
: but they understood it, and they taught it, and they wrote about it. Just
: like a whole lot of other martial arts concepts that you decry.
The most common term I have seen used for it in period manuals is
"measure", but I frequently call it "range", just because people with
modern vocubularies tend to understand the latter quicker. I'm not quite
sure if I agree with your idea of some people picking up "ma-ai" very
quickly and others taking longer, though. In my experience, people grasp
the *idea* of measure, intellectually, very quickly. The discrepancy
arises in that some people develop an instinctive sense of measure very
quickly, while others will cheerfully wander in and out of measure without
realising whether they're in striking range or not. I think that once
someone has thrown a few test shots to "find" their measure the first
time, the best way for them to develop a sense of it is to practice
aggressively against an aggressive opponent. If they're fighting someone
who sits back and waits for openings, they might not realize when they've
fallen inside his measure, whereas if their opponent throws many shots,
they'll be aware the second they're within striking distance. Similarly,
the student needs to throw many attacks in order to feel out his own
measure. Intense offensive exchanges are less helpful for developing
certain other techniques, such as body voids, but a sense of measure seems
to come best from lots and lots of attacks being given and taken.
A. Wolgemuth (a non-combatant, so don't take me too seriously! ;-)
Wolgemuth Andrew G
Bryan J. Maloney (bj...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: Rubbish. Where is the system? Outside of a few cells, there is no actual
: system to it. A martial art is systematic. Furthermore, the emphasis in
: SCA is NOT upon combat, it is upon sport. SCA training is optimized to
: act within and take advantage of the conventions of a specific sport.
:
: With some development, SCA combat could become a martial sport, but it is
: certainly not a martial art.
Could I make a counter-proposal here? If people are learning how
best to forcefully hit other people with "weapons", even if not
particularly systematically, then what they are learning is both an art,
and it is martial, hence a martial art. What separates SCA heavy from
more conventional martial arts, is that it is not being TREATED or VIEWED
as a martial art. Systematization, skilled teachers and so-forth are the
hallmarks of a WELL-DONE martial art. Reliance primarly on the dreaded
"move that worked for me the last time I tried it" is less formal, but
still a combative system of a sort. It seems a reasonable compromise to
say that SCA heavy is a martial art, but one that has been approached in
the same way we do everything else -- amateurishly. After all, not every
practitioner of a martial art is a master, or even competent. Why should
SCA heavy not be considered simply a martial art with a particularly low
general level of skill amongst the practitioners.
A. Wolgemuth (again, totally unqualified to offer opinions -- just like
many of the people chiming in here)
Wolgemuth Andrew G
Ken Mondschein (k...@bu.edu) wrote:
: This artifical dichotomy is *right out* of Edgerton Castle. His
: thinking, and that of his 19th century cronies, has been informing the West
: for over 100 years-- though the ideas is 200, nay, 300, 400!-- years old.
:
: I disproved Castle in a recent paper I wrote. Medieval swordplay was
: far from crude; it was, however, not fencing.
Could you refer me to the journal your paper was published in? Or
email me a copy? I'd be interested in reading it. I finally got around
to reading Castle just last year.
My chief objection to Castle, actually, is not the c. 1500 break
in stylistic development he posits. I'm willing to accept that, so long
as it is accompanied by a second such break c. 1700. Castle seems to want
to show "modern" (to him) fencing to be the final, perfect, ultimate
culmination of a process of stylistic evolution that first sees light of
day in Agrippa, and then evolves to increasing perfection. Of course, the
swordplay of given times is different because the weapons and
circumstances change, not because it takes 400 years to provide Castle
with his "perfect" style, but the idea of stylistic development
(parallelling the development of the weapon, which in turn follows social
change) is sound enough. However, if the 16th century change from a
predominantly cut-based style to a predominantly thrust based style (this
is oversimplification, of course, but hey, this is Usenet!) can constitute
a break from the old tradition and a change to a new, then I think that
the development of 18th century court sword style, which is highly
formalized and sport-like -- ultra-Spanish in nature, rather than dynamic
like the earlier Italian rapier form -- should constitute another such
break. 16th century rapier technique is based on one critical assumption:
that your opponent is unarmoured, but he is presumed to be armed with
anything short of a gun. 18th century style (at least, given my reading of
Castle's limited synopses, as I have too little interest in the period to
make a proper study) demands that your opponent be unarmoured, AND that he
be armed with an oversized knitting needle, AND that he be attempting to
play in the "proper" fashion.
A. Wolgemuth (Could be completely off-base... but I'm learning :-)
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net
Ken Mondschein wrote:
>
> Fencing has never "devolved," though it has mutated into a sport. If
> anything, (classical) fencing has become more refined through long experience.
>
I didnt say fencing had devolved. I said the foil was the end result of
the devolution of the sword. This is my opinion, and is no based on any
kind of hard evidence, it's more of an aesthetic kind of thing. I
personally just don't like foils (and consequently, their styles of
fighting) as much as a nice, heavy broadsword.
> foil-fencing manual. The principles are the same as for a claymore.
>
Well, foils are designed more for thrusting, and claymores for slashing,
but aside from that, the principals ARE similar... But if there is any
evidence for a period manual or swordmanship-school teaching the
claymore, i would really like to know about it... And, if you trace the
thread back, that was my point. I never denied the existence of period
schools of fencing... I said that the early, barbaric people didnt have
them, and that as such, SCA heavy combat should not have to be taught as
a 'martial art' requiring years of dedication, in the style of some of
the eastern M. A.'s, before allowing you to actually fight. The Scots
didnt teach it that way... as soon as you were old enough to hold a
sword, you were sent out on the battlefield. And a large amount of
other 'period' cultures were the same.
-Mefiston
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net
Ken Mondschein wrote:
>
> mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net wrote:
> : I wrote:
> :
> : > Again, I'm just throwing out ideas, and this is how *I* think of heavy
> : > combat. I don't see the need for it to evolve into a martial art
> : > requiring hours of medication and years of devotion. Its more of a
> : > saturday after-noon, beat up your best friend kinda thing.
> : >
> : > -Mefiston
>
> : just a typo.
>
> Sure it wasn't a Freudian slip?
>
> Ken Mondschein
> Work in Progress
>
> Graduate Student, History Department, Boston University
>
Heh, it probably was.
-Mefiston
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> The poster postulating the barbarian has been putting forward
> the hypothesis that training and thought are not required
> and were not done in period - that size and strength were
> what determined things, not technique, that it was all hack
> and slash, rather than footwork, movement, balance, focus,
> bladework, etc.
>
> As I read it, he was postulating a one on one attack - one charging
> Scotsman vs one fencer, no buddies involved.
>
> Silfren
Well, originally, i wasnt talking about fencers at all. People assumed
i was and dragged that into the conversation. And i wasnt saying that
training and thought were not done in period, just that they werent
taught as much (or in some places, at all) in the parts of 'period' that
i would define heavy combat as, and that even where they was training,
it wouldnt necesarrily save you from a great big hairy guy with twice
your strength. History tells us, after all, that those great big hairy
scots won their share of fights against the english (who had better
training, and outranked them in almost every case).
-Mefiston
mefi...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net
Bellatrix2 wrote:
>
> I suppose that is why football linemen don't learn techinique...just use brute
> strength...
Well, football is a little out of period...
> I also suppose that ids why wrestleres don't learn technique either...
>
> hehehe
>
> I guess that ends the brute strengths vs technique arguement....
>
...and are we talking about modern profesional wrestling, modern 'real'
wrestling (such as high-school or college...)... or are we actually
discussing the wrestling that went on in period? I dont think there
were any manuals of wrestling style (or if there were, I've heard of no
surviving ones...) but from most accounts or stories ive found, the
local village wrestling championes tended to be the big guys...
If you have any accurate sources on period wrestling, I'd love to see
them, and I'll try to hunt up those stories...
-Mefiston