218358 Bullies, 974 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 311 to 320 of 512
Page 32 of 52 FirstFirst ... 222829303132 3334353642 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. captainzorikh is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    185

    Posted On:
    8/09/2010 1:00pm


     Style: grappling, swordfighting

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by odysseus_dallas View Post
    Ok, here's my take on the subject.
    I'm not going to argue that SCA combat is a martial art or not, because as it's been proven, the very definition of a martial art does vary (heck, we have all sorts of similar issues all around).

    However, I'll stick to the facts.
    1)SCA combat uses a specific ruleset that is not designed for absolute realism but mainly for safety reasons.
    2)Said ruleset does not allow grappling of any sort.
    3)Said ruleset does not allow full body targeting of any sort.
    4)Said ruleset does not allow several effective and historically accurate techniques, thus meaning it does not train people to counter or avoid them.
    5)Said ruleset does not allow full use of weapons.
    6)Said ruleset creates artificial situations that would not appear in a normal situation, thus teaching methods that are ineffective in normal situations.

    Right or wrong, these are the facts. They are very specific limiters that HEMA, as a general rule (individual group training aside, of course), do not have.

    So, in the end, regardless of whether SCA combat is a martial art or not, the skills it teaches are just a subset of what HEMA teaches. Am I correct?

    As for the other argument, about "taking it seriously", I believe it's also the root cause of most of the problems- some people take it a bit too seriously.
    While their dedication is admirable (and enviable, to be frank), it creates the same problems in most cases as with any such pursuit, including Olympic fencing and many unarmed martial arts: any criticism aimed at them, just or unjust, is met with the same reaction, be it wrath, scorn, or outright ignoring. Also, the same case can be made for plenty of LARPers who might take what they're doing very, VERY seriously, but this does not suddenly turn what they're doing into what they want it to be.
    The limitations of the SCA ruleset that you describe parallel the limitations of almost any combat sport's ruleset. Almost all of them apply to boxing, kickboxing, and savate, and, to a degree, muay thai, for instance. Judo, BJJ, grappling, and wrestling don't allow striking. Many of those sports don't allow slamming. Even the UFC doesn't allow kicking people in the head when they are down, grabbing the cage, eye gouging, biting, or strikes to the groin. And the most artificial limitations of all, all of these sports enforce a specific dress code and weight classes, and try to match skill levels (The SCA has none of these limitations).

    Many of these limitations come into play when HEMA practitions compete themselves, and in many version of HEMA sport, they don't allow full-strength blows or missile weapons, things that the SCA does allow.

    I would categorically not call the SCA a subset of HEMA teaching. One thing I can't deny is that SCA combat was developed as a way to try to replicate the spirit of medieval swordfighting for lots of people with minimal injury when little was known of medieval technique. HEMA seems to be about recreating historical technique, and there are people trying to figure out how to make it a safe competitive sport.

    I am inclined to think that a sport that is about hitting someone with a stick without grappling is about as much a martial art as a sport about punching and kicking someone without grappling, or grappling with someone without punching and kicking them.

    If that means it is a martial art to you, fine. If not, fine. If the origins of the sport (street fighting, Okinawan peasant self-defense, knightly combat, etc) is an important part of your definition, so be it.

    There is still no other martial art, combat sport, or recreational activity that gives you the opportunity to charge into battle with a thousand of your best friends against another thousand of your best friends and hit them in the head with a stick!
  2. captainzorikh is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    185

    Posted On:
    8/10/2010 8:37am


     Style: grappling, swordfighting

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Just thought I'd throw up some SCA combat partner drills...

    YouTube- ‪Asgard system sword drills and techniques‬‎
    More than one "wrap shot" in here.

    YouTube- ‪Asgard partner drill‬‎
    A little self-critique in this one.

    YouTube- ‪The Parry Drill‬‎
    Look! Footwork!

    And here's the guy who did the test cutting above in action (*black armor)
    YouTube- ‪Intense Shield vs Shield fighting Brooklyn, NY‬‎
    Last edited by captainzorikh; 8/10/2010 8:52am at .
  3. Ningirsu is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    63

    Posted On:
    8/10/2010 10:07am

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Longsword, Krav Maga

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Definitely better than most SCA stuff I've seen, but it's clear that there is virtually no regard whatsoever of the inherent physicality of how steel swords behave.
    Edge-edge parrying (the fact that you're practicing parrying at all says something too), no real press/bind/winding consideration in "blade" contact, no consideration of the strong/weak relationship that's crucial in even modern fencing, using rattan/stick weapons instead of balanced practice swords, no consideration for the actual feel and behavior of steel contact against steel.
    Yes, there is some footwork, but distance, offhand use, full body leverage, and foot alignment is still ignored. Footwork is not just for positioning! Any art with a combative background can tell you that, including sport fencing.

    It may sound like I'm just trying to find problems (for that I apologize), but the fact is that any combat system has to be looked at in its entirety--it's not just several elements here and there that cause the distortion that Odysseus and I are trying to point out. The entire perspective and goals of SCA combat differ from that of HEMA, and so every single part of the SCA combat system will have issues in our eyes--especially when everyone interested in what we do thinks we're the same as SCA!

    If you're assuming SCA combat is a game, that's fine--just see to it that people don't get the wrong idea in thinking that this is how medieval knights trained and fought.
  4. Ningirsu is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    63

    Posted On:
    8/10/2010 10:37am

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Longsword, Krav Maga

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by captainzorikh View Post
    The limitations of the SCA ruleset that you describe parallel the limitations of almost any combat sport's ruleset. Almost all of them apply to boxing, kickboxing, and savate, and, to a degree, muay thai, for instance.
    I understand safety to be a universal consideration and SCA, like other arts, tries to be safe. But I think the issue is in how safety is achieved.

    For boxing, kickboxing, savate, MMA, etc etc the ruleset revolves around the art itself.
    What moves within this art would be too dangerous to use in competition? What techniques would a person be able to employ that is not actually part of the art?
    Based on what the art teaches, how will we score points?

    For SCA, however, the relationship is reversed. The art revolves around the ruleset!
    Since we want everyone to be allowed to participate, what kind of moves will we forbid?
    Since we're trying to emulate medieval society, what kind of equipment will we require?
    Based on this equipment, what will constitute a point?

    And here's the question that distinguishes sport from martial art:
    Based on this system of rules, what are the best ways to achieve a point?

    When an art changes because of a ruleset, it's been contaminated. Sport fencing, kendo, and sport Tkd are examples (although not as seriously as SCA since they do require proper form of the original art). For MMA, the best way to achieve an armbar is to properly do the armbar. For Muay Thai/boxing the best way to knock out or beat down someone is to beat them down as the art intended.

    For SCA, the ruleset came before the art, and the art evolved from the ruleset.

    For HEMA organizations, the "ultra-orthodox" (I can't think of a better term--sorry if that offends) at ARMA don't have official competitions. Sparring is to better oneself at the art; the ruleset is not rigid other than what is allowed by the country's law and what can prevent lawsuits.
    Grappling, eye gouging, knees to the groin etc are "allowed" so far as they are not fully executed. Those not sparring at the time observe and note what *would* have been the result if we were going seriously. Based on that, we don't argue for points; we simply learn from what happened.
    Eg Would that strike have been debilitating? Probably not, but I don't want to be hit at all. I'll do better next time!

    As for HEMA competitions, again--it's a ruleset based on the art.

    Quote Originally Posted by captainzorikh View Post
    There is still no other martial art, combat sport, or recreational activity that gives you the opportunity to charge into battle with a thousand of your best friends against another thousand of your best friends and hit them in the head with a stick!
    Now that I give you mad props for. Definitely a wonder to behold, and certainly super fun!
    Last edited by Ningirsu; 8/10/2010 10:54am at .
  5. captainzorikh is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    185

    Posted On:
    8/10/2010 11:21am


     Style: grappling, swordfighting

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ningirsu View Post
    Definitely better than most SCA stuff I've seen, but it's clear that there is virtually no regard whatsoever of the inherent physicality of how steel swords behave.
    Edge-edge parrying (the fact that you're practicing parrying at all says something too), no real press/bind/winding consideration in "blade" contact, no consideration of the strong/weak relationship that's crucial in even modern fencing, using rattan/stick weapons instead of balanced practice swords, no consideration for the actual feel and behavior of steel contact against steel.
    Yes, there is some footwork, but distance, offhand use, full body leverage, and foot alignment is still ignored. Footwork is not just for positioning! Any art with a combative background can tell you that, including sport fencing.

    It may sound like I'm just trying to find problems (for that I apologize), but the fact is that any combat system has to be looked at in its entirety--it's not just several elements here and there that cause the distortion that Odysseus and I are trying to point out. The entire perspective and goals of SCA combat differ from that of HEMA, and so every single part of the SCA combat system will have issues in our eyes--especially when everyone interested in what we do thinks we're the same as SCA!

    If you're assuming SCA combat is a game, that's fine--just see to it that people don't get the wrong idea in thinking that this is how medieval knights trained and fought.
    Thanks for noticing that this is "better than most" SCA stuff you have seen. The SCA is a very big group and anyone at any skill level can compete, and there is no "pro circuit" for the elite fighters (though the final rounds of crown tourneys and kingdom champions do wind up with the best fighters in them). Therefore, you are more likely to see less skilled people doing it on YouTube than you will see doing, say, professional baseball or boxing on TV.

    SCA Combat is not, by that name, a "combat system." It is a set of rules for competitive combat with certain weapons. within those rules, you can say there are "combat systems" that have developed over the years by those who have dedicated themselves to excellence in the art/sport. But the differences between the style in one area of the country may vary as much from the style of another as, say, jiu jitsu, judo, brazilian jiu jitsu, aikido, sambo, and shootfighting. Thus, it is dangerous to judge the entire world of SCA combat based on a few YouTube videos.

    For my part it is risky for me to put a few videos up and hope that they will be an accurate representation of the best the SCA has to offer. anbd futile to expect that it will represent the totality of what people do.

    These are three particular drill videos, hardly a thorough examination of all permutations, styles, variants, drills, and techniques used in the SCA.

    Yes, we established long ago that SCA combat is stick fighting, not steel swordfighting, and therefore things that work with steel may not work with sticks. I know much more about sticks than I do about steel. In sword & shield combat there is almost no binding/winding at all. The weapons seldom stay engaged long enough for that to be an issue. Most sword-to-sword contact seems to happen when two fighters are swinging at each other and the weapons happen to run into each other.

    Deliberate blocking/parrying with the sword actually happen very rarely in sword & shield fighting, but when it does, I'm sure you know as well as I do that an edge-to-edge parry with a straight, strong wrist is stronger than a parry with the flat.

    There is actually a rule that if you make three consecutive "static" blocks with a sword (that is, a block where the sword is braced against the shield) then the weapon is considered broken.

    But again, these are drills for specific things, not combat.

    The lack of offhand use in the single-handed sword drill can be attributed to the assumption that either a) the arm is holding a shield or b) the arm is disabled. In any event these are drills focusing on specific things to be incorporated into one's game, not full combat.

    I can tell you that with two-handed swords and polearms, pressing, binding, winding, full body leverage, footwork, and all those other things are much more apparent in their use that you see in these three little single-sword videos.

    And just because these videos did not mention all those other little details that you said are "ignored," does not mean they are ignored all the time, or are even being ignored here. That video posted of the two HEMA Longsword guys did not mention anything at all about anything they were doing, so all the proper use of all those considerations (assuming theat is what was going on) could have been merely the result of these guy's being physically well-inclined to the activity, rather than being actually concerned about all those details.

    Duke Paul of Belatrix (sort of the Babe Ruth of SCA combat) is quite particular about many of the aspects of fighting you have mentioned (including footwork) Sadly, there are no YouTube videos of him training. He does, however, have a website you might find interesting http://www.bellatrix.org/school/

    But you do have me wondering, when did HEMA schools start picking up? For how long, if at all, was the SCA pretty much the only game in town with regard to anything remotely in the neighborhood of medieval armored combat? And how much can HEMA practitioners say they owe the SCA for reviving interest in the medieval arts, especially inasmuch as it has led to the growth of HEMA?
  6. captainzorikh is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    185

    Posted On:
    8/10/2010 11:43am


     Style: grappling, swordfighting

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    "For SCA, the ruleset came before the art, and the art evolved from the ruleset."

    Thanks for clearing up that point of view.

    Well, the relationship isn't that clear-cut. Many rules came about after someone got hurt, most notably things like armor and weapon regulations and things like not striking the knee, shin, or foot, which was soon followed by the rule against blocking a leg shot with your shin or foot.

    There is a bit of chicken-and-egg that went on, though I will accept that much of the development of the art (by which I mean the development of skills and techniques used in the sport, as opposed to the development of the sport, which would be the rules and equipment, and their appplications) came after the establishement of most of the basic rules (no grappling, the definition of the legal target area, and one-hit kills).

    Your opinion of the importance of that definition is one that I had not heard before I started this thread, so for that I thank you.

    But just to give a little insight into "what they were thinking" back in the early days (which I am sure will get a lot of knee-jerk reactions out of some people) here's what Corpora said about "killing from behind" back in 1971:

    http://jducoeur.org/justin/hist-corp-v1.html
    Volume One, Entry Number Five

    A Question has been raised before the BoD concerning the suitability of striking from behind during combat engaged in under the Rules of the Lists of the SCA. The Board has deliberated upon this matter.
    [Whereas; if a man knows that he is being attacked, it is possible that he may be struck from behind because he is unable to guard the attack sufficiently. In such a case it is judged that he will probably be, at the very least, prepared for the blow he receives.
    [Whereas; if a man does not know that he is being attacked, it seems probably that he will not be prepared for any blow he receives.
    [Whereas; if a man is not aware of impending attack, he may inadvertantly move in such a way as to expose to danger angles or portions of his body which are not normally exposed to such danger.
    [Whereas; if the attacker aims a blow at a certain angle or portion of his opponent's body, and the opponent, unaware that he is being attacked, moves; the attacker may deliver a blow such as he would not normally attempt.
    [Whereas; more injury is caused in the practice of this sport by mistake than by deliberation.
    [Whereas; attacking from behind is conducive to making such mistakes as may be regarded inordinantly (sic) dangerous.
    [And Whereas; attacking a man without giving him any warning, and without giving him the opportunity to defend himself, may be considered to be Ambush.
    [And Whereas; Ambush is the act of a craven, not of an honest, noble, brave, or chivalrous man.
    It is the decision of the BoD of the SCA, that:
    [A] "Attacking from Behind" is constituted by attacking an opponent in such a way that he is not aware of the fact that he is being attacked.
    [B] "Attacking from Behind" is unchivalrous and ungentlemanly behaviour, and as such is in violation of the Rules of the Lists of the SCA.



    Nowadays "killing from behind" and other issues of how to deal with someone who's back is to you in a melee varies from kingdom-to-kingdom, and is constantly debated.



    You can also find a fascinating history of the dawn of the SCA at http://history.westkingdom.org/index.htm
  7. Ningirsu is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    63

    Posted On:
    8/10/2010 12:51pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Longsword, Krav Maga

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Thanks for the links! Informative stuff.

    Another thing I have to hand it to SCA for is the administration. For SCA to be this huge and steady is something everyone should learn a bit more from.

    Quote Originally Posted by captainzorikh View Post

    But you do have me wondering, when did HEMA schools start picking up? For how long, if at all, was the SCA pretty much the only game in town with regard to anything remotely in the neighborhood of medieval armored combat? And how much can HEMA practitioners say they owe the SCA for reviving interest in the medieval arts, especially inasmuch as it has led to the growth of HEMA?
    I'm not an expert on the history of HEMA, but this is what I know so far:

    A good number of individuals were working on reviving historical combat for a fair amount of time (like the one in the early 20th century that went alongside Bartitsu), but they never united under the umbrella term of "HEMA" until the larger organizations started popping up.

    I think the major point of "revival" was the formation of the organization started by Hank Reinhardt, a name I'm sure people in both the SCA and the HEMA community know very well.
    Along with John Clements and invaluable help from Ewart Oakeshott, they formed the Historical Armed Combat Association (HACA) in 1992, which is now known as none other than ARMA, the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts.

    Prior to that Reinhardt and co. were all working on getting access to the source literature in the late 80s because there really wasn't anyone who knew anything significant about the subject--not even the SCA. John Clements might have been searching through libraries, professors like Dr. Sidney Anglo, and museums even prior to the late 80s.

    I can't say much about other HEMA organizations, but my impression (based on the dates of their formation) is that they actually started up because of ARMA's success and display of potential. I wouldn't be surprised if it was precisely because of John Clements' own seminars and publications that other HEMA organizations were formed.

    SCA has unfortunately been far more detrimental to the revival of medieval arts than being a help. Like movie fighting, it has caused the general public to have misconceptions of medieval fighting which results in HEMA organizations having to spend additional effort dispelling myths. Not only do we have movies to deal with, we also have SCA fighting to contrast ourselves with.

    Now that SCA has incorporated HEMA in various groups things might get better. As it is, however, even I personally have had to explain on numerous occasions to my friends as to how SCA differs from that which HEMA does. The recent documentary Reclaiming the Blade has help dispel some of the misconceptions, but we still have a long way to go.

    Long story short, I think SCA has sadly done the exact opposite of generating interest.
    SCA appeals to a much broader audience than HEMA does and has many more appearances than HEMA communities. But as a result, those looking for something like HEMA end up seeing SCA as "medieval combat" first and then get turned off by the mere mention of "medieval combat" when the HEMA organizations reach them--they ironically dismiss it as LARP'ing due to all the formalities, costumes, and...well, obese people (how can someone of that physical shape fit in the historical museum armors, let alone fight properly? They're clearly pretending to be something they aren't.)

    Hope this helps clear some things.
  8. odysseus_dallas is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    220

    Posted On:
    8/10/2010 1:23pm


     Style: ARMA Scholar, Longsword

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Arg, big-ass post coming up again. That's what happens when you post once in a couple of days.

    Quote Originally Posted by captainzorikh View Post
    There are almost as many ways to throw the blows he is demonstrating as there are fighters. They can be adapted for many ranges and can be done with or without "putting your body into it." They can be done while moving one's feet and standing still, there are techniques that involve moving one's feet and standing still, feet pointing in different direction, stepping with the blow, right foot forward, pressing shields, open shields, closed shields, flat shields, curved shields, bucklers, center-grip rounds, pavoices, etc, etc, etc. Wrap shots can be done at the same range as a fully extended flat snap, and I have seen a particularly skilled fighter win a bout in one shot with it.
    That does not mean all of them are effective. As a matter of fact, I believe most of them are not. Whether or not many people make it look effective with improper equipment does not mean it's really effective. Sure, some people might make it work, but there is a certain objectivity to be used as a benchmark.

    The turning over of the wrist is not as awkward at t may seem. Your hand naturally does it when swingin abaseball bat or tennis wracket accross your body.
    Yes, but cutting demands proper alignment, otherwise you're not cutting right.

    I just spent a few minutes examining my own wrap shot. The part of the swing in which the flat is at the lead edge of the swing (and would thus hit the target) is actually only the part of the swing in which the hand turns over. After that the blade is leading the rest of the way and the flat will not hit unless it is a glancing blow. Depending on the size of the target (the head, the back, the hip, the leg), there would be a great deal of movement needed for the blow not to get a piece of something and do some damage.
    That's true, but as I said again, it's a matter of effectiveness. Hitting somebody with three pounds of steel in the head can give him a concussion even with the flat, but it's hardly the most effective thing you can do. As for the kind of damage, see below for what I mean.

    One of these days I will set up my own camera and make my own videos of SCA sword technique ;)
    Looking forward to that :D

    Quote Originally Posted by captainzorikh View Post
    According to the SCA Conventions of Combat, C.2. "An effective blow from an axe, mace, polearm, greatsword, or other mass weapon, which lands on the hip above the hip socket or the shoulder above the shoulder socket shall be judged fatal or completely disabling.

    In the East Kingdom Conventions of Combat CC13. "A mace, polearm, or great sword blow to the hip kills, as does an ax blow to the inner thigh. Any other weapon blow to the hip disables the fighter, so that he may not rise up on his knees. A blow to the shoulder joint or the inside of the shoulder joint with a weapon listed above kills. A blow on the outside of the shoulder joint disables the arm."

    So there are fatal leg blows in the SCA, just not from every weapon, all the time, to the entire leg.
    True, but to be honest, you and I could debate what kind of injuries were debilitating or not till the end of the world... but it wouldn't matter, really. We need

    A)Scientific Data
    B)Eyewitness Accounts

    Preferably both. I believe Clements has written a book on wounds of medieval battles according to same-era accounts, but I haven't read it yet. So honestly, what would constitute a good hit or not with a weapon is debatable even unarmored. Add armor, and it becomes a nightmare.

    Quote Originally Posted by captainzorikh View Post
    The limitations of the SCA ruleset that you describe parallel the limitations of almost any combat sport's ruleset. Almost all of them apply to boxing, kickboxing, and savate, and, to a degree, muay thai, for instance. Judo, BJJ, grappling, and wrestling don't allow striking. Many of those sports don't allow slamming. Even the UFC doesn't allow kicking people in the head when they are down, grabbing the cage, eye gouging, biting, or strikes to the groin. And the most artificial limitations of all, all of these sports enforce a specific dress code and weight classes, and try to match skill levels (The SCA has none of these limitations).

    Many of these limitations come into play when HEMA practitions compete themselves, and in many version of HEMA sport, they don't allow full-strength blows or missile weapons, things that the SCA does allow.

    I would categorically not call the SCA a subset of HEMA teaching. One thing I can't deny is that SCA combat was developed as a way to try to replicate the spirit of medieval swordfighting for lots of people with minimal injury when little was known of medieval technique. HEMA seems to be about recreating historical technique, and there are people trying to figure out how to make it a safe competitive sport.

    I am inclined to think that a sport that is about hitting someone with a stick without grappling is about as much a martial art as a sport about punching and kicking someone without grappling, or grappling with someone without punching and kicking them.

    If that means it is a martial art to you, fine. If not, fine. If the origins of the sport (street fighting, Okinawan peasant self-defense, knightly combat, etc) is an important part of your definition, so be it.
    I believe Ningirsu pretty much covered it for me. Can't add much.

    There is still no other martial art, combat sport, or recreational activity that gives you the opportunity to charge into battle with a thousand of your best friends against another thousand of your best friends and hit them in the head with a stick!
    Change the stick to a boffer, and presto, examples given aplenty :-p
    Though you have to realise this argument, while saying how fun is the SCA, doesn't really validate everything you say, no offense.

    Quote Originally Posted by captainzorikh View Post
    SCA Combat is not, by that name, a "combat system." It is a set of rules for competitive combat with certain weapons. within those rules, you can say there are "combat systems" that have developed over the years by those who have dedicated themselves to excellence in the art/sport. But the differences between the style in one area of the country may vary as much from the style of another as, say, jiu jitsu, judo, brazilian jiu jitsu, aikido, sambo, and shootfighting. Thus, it is dangerous to judge the entire world of SCA combat based on a few YouTube videos.

    Yes, we established long ago that SCA combat is stick fighting, not steel swordfighting, and therefore things that work with steel may not work with sticks. I know much more about sticks than I do about steel. In sword & shield combat there is almost no binding/winding at all. The weapons seldom stay engaged long enough for that to be an issue. Most sword-to-sword contact seems to happen when two fighters are swinging at each other and the weapons happen to run into each other.
    So, as I said, it does not take into account a lot of things of what it's supposed to be a simulation of, historical authenticity aside. You do realize, however, that most people do make the illogical assumption that despite these (which they do, sometimes deliberately, ignore) shortcomings, they are actually being faithful to what actual combat with steel weapons would be about?

    Deliberate blocking/parrying with the sword actually happen very rarely in sword & shield fighting, but when it does, I'm sure you know as well as I do that an edge-to-edge parry with a straight, strong wrist is stronger than a parry with the flat.
    Please, let's not go into the whole edge vs flat parry debate. Ever again. It's one of the poorest dead beaten-up horses in the history of HEMA, and I honestly never realized why. It's like saying what's the most effective way to hit a nail with a hammer- with the head or the shaft.

    There is actually a rule that if you make three consecutive "static" blocks with a sword (that is, a block where the sword is braced against the shield) then the weapon is considered broken.
    Ok, where'd that come from? :eusa_thin

    The lack of offhand use in the single-handed sword drill can be attributed to the assumption that either a) the arm is holding a shield or b) the arm is disabled. In any event these are drills focusing on specific things to be incorporated into one's game, not full combat.
    Actually, since grappling is not allowed, the off-hand is pretty much useless anyway.

    I can tell you that with two-handed swords and polearms, pressing, binding, winding, full body leverage, footwork, and all those other things are much more apparent in their use that you see in these three little single-sword videos.

    And just because these videos did not mention all those other little details that you said are "ignored," does not mean they are ignored all the time, or are even being ignored here. That video posted of the two HEMA Longsword guys did not mention anything at all about anything they were doing, so all the proper use of all those considerations (assuming theat is what was going on) could have been merely the result of these guy's being physically well-inclined to the activity, rather than being actually concerned about all those details.
    I don't really get what you mean by saying "physically well-inclined". If you mean that they did it without paying attention to what they were doing, I do believe that's the point of training- internalization.

    But you do have me wondering, when did HEMA schools start picking up? For how long, if at all, was the SCA pretty much the only game in town with regard to anything remotely in the neighborhood of medieval armored combat? And how much can HEMA practitioners say they owe the SCA for reviving interest in the medieval arts, especially inasmuch as it has led to the growth of HEMA?
    Which could lead back to Victorian-era scholars and their attempts to recreate what they thought was "medieval combat" through (usually) a classical fencing lens.
    However, saying that HEMA owes the SCA is a bit of a far fetch. Sure, some of the people now in HEMA were from the SCA initially, but many remained in SCA, didn't they? And that would really be the extent of it, honestly.

    Quote Originally Posted by captainzorikh View Post
    "For SCA, the ruleset came before the art, and the art evolved from the ruleset."

    Thanks for clearing up that point of view.

    Well, the relationship isn't that clear-cut. Many rules came about after someone got hurt, most notably things like armor and weapon regulations and things like not striking the knee, shin, or foot, which was soon followed by the rule against blocking a leg shot with your shin or foot.

    There is a bit of chicken-and-egg that went on, though I will accept that much of the development of the art (by which I mean the development of skills and techniques used in the sport, as opposed to the development of the sport, which would be the rules and equipment, and their appplications) came after the establishement of most of the basic rules (no grappling, the definition of the legal target area, and one-hit kills).

    Your opinion of the importance of that definition is one that I had not heard before I started this thread, so for that I thank you.

    But just to give a little insight into "what they were thinking" back in the early days (which I am sure will get a lot of knee-jerk reactions out of some people) here's what Corpora said about "killing from behind" back in 1971:

    http://jducoeur.org/justin/hist-corp-v1.html
    Volume One, Entry Number Five

    A Question has been raised before the BoD concerning the suitability of striking from behind during combat engaged in under the Rules of the Lists of the SCA. The Board has deliberated upon this matter.
    [Whereas; if a man knows that he is being attacked, it is possible that he may be struck from behind because he is unable to guard the attack sufficiently. In such a case it is judged that he will probably be, at the very least, prepared for the blow he receives.
    [Whereas; if a man does not know that he is being attacked, it seems probably that he will not be prepared for any blow he receives.
    [Whereas; if a man is not aware of impending attack, he may inadvertantly move in such a way as to expose to danger angles or portions of his body which are not normally exposed to such danger.
    [Whereas; if the attacker aims a blow at a certain angle or portion of his opponent's body, and the opponent, unaware that he is being attacked, moves; the attacker may deliver a blow such as he would not normally attempt.
    [Whereas; more injury is caused in the practice of this sport by mistake than by deliberation.
    [Whereas; attacking from behind is conducive to making such mistakes as may be regarded inordinantly (sic) dangerous.
    [And Whereas; attacking a man without giving him any warning, and without giving him the opportunity to defend himself, may be considered to be Ambush.
    [And Whereas; Ambush is the act of a craven, not of an honest, noble, brave, or chivalrous man.
    It is the decision of the BoD of the SCA, that:
    [A] "Attacking from Behind" is constituted by attacking an opponent in such a way that he is not aware of the fact that he is being attacked.
    [B] "Attacking from Behind" is unchivalrous and ungentlemanly behaviour, and as such is in violation of the Rules of the Lists of the SCA.



    Nowadays "killing from behind" and other issues of how to deal with someone who's back is to you in a melee varies from kingdom-to-kingdom, and is constantly debated.



    You can also find a fascinating history of the dawn of the SCA at http://history.westkingdom.org/index.htm
    Honestly, this brings up the same argument from a different angle. In the end, regardless of the "chivalry" involved, hitting while the other person is unaware DOES indeed constitute a safety issue, and thus seeing as SCA is a sport and a game and not a training simulation for actual combat (in which case, as Ningirsu mentioned, the approach is different and not really just doing it anyway), I totally understand why it's not allowed. But this doesn't change the fact that it's a limit.
  9. Ningirsu is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    63

    Posted On:
    8/10/2010 2:38pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Longsword, Krav Maga

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    This just occurred to me:

    http://www.thearma.org/Videos/RMAWD.htm

    Instead of asking me about the history and nature of HEMA, you should check out the web documentary made by ARMA right here! Part 10 explains the revival and reconstruction somewhat.
    Last edited by Ningirsu; 8/10/2010 3:19pm at .
  10. captainzorikh is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    185

    Posted On:
    8/10/2010 3:49pm


     Style: grappling, swordfighting

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    OK, thanks for calling me out on the "edge vs. flat" thing. Obviously a stick 1.25 inches thick or wider does nto have an "edge" that can be dammaged, so should the occasion arise when one happens to be blocking with it, one doesn't worry so much about the edge getting nicked, and facing the direction of the blow with a strong, straight wristis a good effective block. I notice in the "flat of my strong" video the fellow has two hands on his sword, giving him the luxury of having one strong hand and one weak hand, allowing him to present the flat and still be "strong," but a single handed sword doesn't have that luxury...blah, blah, blah, I get the sense this argument has been played out since before I got here.

    In any event, blocking directly with any sword in SCA combat doesn't happen much, and those videos are drills that seem to be about...well...regaining the initiative when a parry happens.

    Most of the maneuvers int the Polish video that don't involving grappling with the hands, and everything in the "displacing diagonal cuts" video look like they would do just fine in SCA combat.

    But if we want to compare chicken legs to breasts (something a little bit closer than apples & oranges, but still different) here's some SCA 2-handed sword combat, with swords of various lengths, practitioners of various skill levels, in various scenarios:

    YouTube- ‪Duke Palymar & Duke Gregor Greatsword‬‎

    YouTube- ‪Greatsword‬‎

    YouTube- ‪Kingdom of Calontir Barony of Vatavia HL Ebhan VS HL Cai with greatsword.‬‎

    This video shows that guy who did the test cutting early in his career (ugly black armor)...
    YouTube- ‪Brooklyn Fighter Practice - Tsafa vs. Gil - Greatsword 1‬‎

    ...and here he is two years later (note the lockdown maneuver applied at 2:39)...
    YouTube- ‪Greatsword vs Longsword Brooklyn NY‬‎

    And you can see more a few pages back when I posted those Crown Tourney videos.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.