228154 Bullies, 4467 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 471 to 480 of 512
Page 48 of 52 FirstFirst ... 384445464748 49505152 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. painbank

    Guest

    Posted On:
    7/12/2012 9:36am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by SifuJason View Post
    I am just now looking at BoN and it seems way better at first glance.

    Don't have much time now but it looks like a) steel weapons and b) some grappling

    both of which are my main gripes with the SCA.
    Yes, the Duel format is a lot closer to SCA style combat or even some HEMA combat. The melees are also close to SCA combat, but addressing your noted issues with SCA combat.
    Of course this brings up other issues, but I feel that is better discussed in another thread.

    All with steel weapons.
  2. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,012

    Posted On:
    7/12/2012 9:45am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by painbank View Post
    yes, that is a report, which I am not looking for. I am looking for your opinion on BoN in the context of the discussion which has raged on here.
    I offered you a thread that was discussing BoN instead of trying to reignite a debate that most posters will not read.
  3. Vorschlag is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    31

    Posted On:
    7/12/2012 8:11pm


     Style: kampfringen/savate

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The closest I've seen to S.C.A moving in a W.M.A or H.E.M.A direction would be the Auckland SCA in New Zealand attempting to work on Italian Rapier.

    They initially started working with Colin Mckinstry who is the head of the New Zealand School of European Martial Arts and eventually started running their own classes.

    I haven't had any dealings with them for quite some time though so I'm unsure if they are sticking to the art or bending it to suit S.C.A rules.

    In regards to people using videos off of Youtube against the S.C.A you can find dozens of videos from most people claiming to practice an aspect of W.M.A or H.E.M.A and see just as much garbage.

    The same would probably go for most groups, part of the issue is that people create rule systems to protect people, technique and equipment need to be your protection a rule system will create false practices.

    In other words, I dont view it as being the same as W.M.A or H.E.M.A nor do I view their practices as a martial art, however there are plenty of groups world wide who would claim to be doing W.M.A and H.E.M.A who could be put in the same boat.
  4. captain zorikh is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    107

    Posted On:
    7/13/2012 8:21am


     Style: bjj, sca, armored combat

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by painbank View Post
    The majority of Team USA, who participated in BoN were SCA. probably like 75%. In that light, does it change the discussion at hand?

    Of course that brings up the point of, is BoN fighting a Martial Art? It is obviously a Martial Sport as it is more than SCA and that has been generally agreed to be a Martial Sport or at least a Combat Sport.
    I would not say it is "generally agreed" that SCA combat is a combat sport, rather that there are some people who insist on calling it a combat sport because for various reasons they are opposed to applying the term "martial art" to it.
  5. painbank

    Guest

    Posted On:
    7/13/2012 4:40pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    SCA Training

    Vorschlag, are you saying that BoN fighters aren't practicing a Marial Art then?

    It is Fake, I will move any discussion about BoN stuff over there then.

    As to the discussion about the original intent of this thread.

    What constitutes a martial art?

    Based upon what most I have gleaned from this thread is that a Martial Art is required to be Codified. It is required to include all the codified techniques of a specific system related to attacking/defending one self in a martial conflict. These are to include leather as well as non-lethal techniques. Anything less than that is not a martial art.

    Is that a true statement for your definition of a Martial Art?

    This led me to this interesting Wikipedia Definition.

    and this one as well:

    Wikipedia link

    Interestingly enough, I wrote my above description prior to looking at these links.

    Perhaps the classification of a particular 'martial art' is affected too much by one's opinion, and therefore it is too subjective. Creating what is a martial art for one is not a martial art for another.
  6. Vorschlag is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    31

    Posted On:
    7/15/2012 8:01pm


     Style: kampfringen/savate

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I havn't commented on the battle of the nations, as I have not seen enough or read enough about it to create an opinion at this stage.
    Your definition of a martial art seems reasonably close to my own understanding.

    One thing I would add to it however is that it must have the capacity to protect the user during conflict, a point system especially with a "first hit" rather than hit without being hit attitude leads directly away from this.

    Please understand that I am not "attacking" S.C.A practices anymore than I would "attack" any similar practice.
    I am sure there are people world wide within the S.C.A who privately study W.M.A or H.E.M.A or other martial arts.

    I simply consider it a false representation for re-enactment combat under the rule systems i've seen to be advertised as a Martial Art, especially when dealing with historical accuracy and "functionality"
    Last edited by Vorschlag; 7/15/2012 8:06pm at .
  7. painbank

    Guest

    Posted On:
    7/17/2012 9:24am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Vorschlag, yes, I added the attacking/defending one self in a martial conflict to the statement. Here is the definition again:

    "A Martial Art is required to be Codified. It is required to include all the codified techniques of a specific system related to attacking/defending one self in a martial conflict."

    and here is the one from the Wikipedia link:

    "The Martial arts are codified systems and traditions of combat practices. They are practiced for a variety of reasons, including self-defense, competition, physical health and fitness, as well as mental, physical, and spiritual development."

    Based upon both of these, I would submit that SCA heavy combat is a martial art. The weakest talking point is the codification side of things, but there is the codification of it as in the Beltrix form previously submitted, as well as the Brannos A-frame form that had a video posted above. They are both techniques one uses for attacking and defending one self. Are they as good as a say a well rounded MMA curriculum? No, but are they sufficient, I would argue that yes, perhaps they are. Movement is taught. Stance is taught. Swinging and blocking are taught. And of course the most important aspect of there is always the possibility that there is someone out there that is much more a badass than you, so the best defense is to avoid the conflict in the first place. and if you have to fight, well you have been trained in some form of combat.
  8. painbank

    Guest

    Posted On:
    7/17/2012 9:26am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    and if you want a basic reference for some of the training techniques, there is always the reference to Vegitius' De Re Militari, which talks about training at the Pell, which is one of the first tenents of what one is taught within the SCA. At least in my local group.
  9. Vorschlag is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    31

    Posted On:
    7/17/2012 6:23pm


     Style: kampfringen/savate

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Indented are SCA rules which would cause me to hesitate classifying it as you have as a martial art

    9. Prolonged overt contact of a fighter's person (hands/feet/limbs/body/head) to an opponent's person is prohibited. Brief incidental contact is expected and acceptable during engagement.
    12. Grasping an opponent's person, shield, weapon's striking surface, or bow/crossbow is prohibited.
    11. Intentionally tripping an opponent is prohibited.
    2. The blade of an opponent’s weapon may not be grasped at any time, nor may it be trapped in contact with the fighter’s body as a means of preventing the opponent’s use of the weapon. Armored hands may grasp the haft of an opponent’s weapon.

    Banned grappling? Big problem there, if someone’s in grappling range the correct thing to do is more often than not to grapple.
    Form historical documentation we can see this was often done with the cross guard, the pommel, the buckler (or in this case shield).

    If you are not controlling range and your opponent closes on you this should eventuate in a grapple.
    If people are banned from grappling then the necessity of controlling range is removed and incorrect techniques will creep in as people take advantage of the rule system.

    This falls outside the agreed definition as false technique will mean that the person is no longer required to defend themselves during their attack etc.


    13. Intentionally striking an opponent outside the legal target areas is forbidden.

    This rings alarm bells, I’m not saying I dont see it’s purpose for safety reason but I feel safety should rely on technique and safety equipment.

    Removing target zones instantly makes it a sport, perhaps a martial sport but the training itself should be designed around no limitations to target zones because in a real situation this would be taken advantage of.

    For instance Arms, wrists, hands etc become open when someone doesn’t cover themselves during their attack and are open game otherwise you are teaching bad habits as the person will continue to exploit the rule system by using techniques that should be easily dealt with.

    Again this allows them to attack in manor which would otherwise be unsafe if the rule system was not protecting them, which I assume you will agree goes outside our definition.


    B. When judging the effect of blows, all fighters are presumed to be fully armored.


    In which case most “blows” should not count at all, see historical documentation on Harness fighting.


    3. An effective blow to the arm above the wrist will disable the arm. The arm shall then be considered useless to the fighter and may not be used for either offense or defense.
    4. An effective blow to the leg above the knee will disable the leg. The fighter must then fight kneeling, sitting, or standing on the foot of the uninjured leg. Kingdoms may place limitations upon the mobility of such injured fighters.
    5. If a wounded limb blocks an otherwise acceptable blow, the blow shall be counted as though the limb were not there.

    Surely you must see a problem here.....insert monty python reference here.....


    F. Sometimes a blow that would normally be accepted occurs at almost the same moment as an event that would cause the fight to be stopped (a “HOLD” being called, the fighter throwing the blow being killed, etc.). If the blow was begun before the occurrence of the event that would cause the bout to be halted, it shall be deemed a legal blow and acceptable, if of sufficient force. If the blow was begun after the occurrence of the event that would cause the bout to be halted, it shall be deemed not legal and need not be accepted.

    This is where we enter the realm of modern fencing, a martial system should never be first to hit because this removes the need to cover lines and protect yourself during and even after the strike.

    One thing we insist on with our training is that even after a strike has connected you must be able to withdraw safely or continue with another technique covering the line i.e a draw cut, plunge cut etc.

    So again the major issue in most these rules is that the remove the necessity to attack or defend ones-self "safely" with the weapon as the rule system gives a bubble of protection where false techniques will grow and multiply.

    I hope this does not come off as offensive as I'm not trying to "attack" the sca system or its rules, I'm simply explaining why I differentiate it from W.M.A and H.E.M.A and wouldnt class it as the study or practice of a martial art.
  10. painbank

    Guest

    Posted On:
    7/17/2012 8:42pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Vorschlag View Post
    Banned grappling? Big problem there, if someone’s in grappling range the correct thing to do is more often than not to grapple.
    Form historical documentation we can see this was often done with the cross guard, the pommel, the buckler (or in this case shield).
    I will continue to return to this statement in the defense against your statements:

    "A Martial Art is required to be Codified. It is required to include all the codified techniques of a specific system related to attacking/defending one self in a martial conflict."

    I will continue to deny any anything against SCA HC being a martial art, which doesn't attack it based upon this statement.

    Your posting of the rules are bunk, as that is the constraints of it as a martial sport, which is very apt when discussing that aspect, but not in this instance.

    Just because it doesn't include grappling, doesn't make discount it as a martial art, but I will agree with you wholeheartedly that it makes it a lesser martial art than some other ones, perhaps, but that isn't what we are discussing.

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.