228031 Bullies, 4647 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 491 to 500 of 512
Page 50 of 52 FirstFirst ... 404647484950 5152 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. painbank

    Guest

    Posted On:
    7/19/2012 8:35am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    SCA and MMA

    I would say that the comparison of discussions about MMA to this discussion SCA HC is pretty apt. Perhaps even more so as applied to HEMA/WMA as well as the BoN format.

    Thanks for the read.

    The difference here is that the SCA, wasn't ever an integration of other MA as much as the techniques and styles were invented. I am not saying that there was no integration of other styles, but generally that is the gist of it. It is being taught and there is rankings (loosely) within the SCA, so I feel it is much farther along in it's evolution than MMA, at least on the path as described here and in the other thread, to becoming a martial art as defined. Perhaps they are pretty close to the same trajectory. As to BoN, I think that may be closer to the MMA comparison than SCA.

    now it seems I am talking in circles.
  2. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,012

    Posted On:
    7/19/2012 10:07am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by painbank View Post

    The difference here is that the SCA, wasn't ever an integration of other MA as much as the techniques and styles were invented.
    Once again we will disagree. It may have changed, but when I started back in the day Group A did random untrained hack and slash, some groups were historical reenactment, some were taking old manuals to recreate styles, others were a mixture of both, some used Japanese warfare strategy etc etc etc.

    there is rankings (loosely) within the SCA, so I feel it is much farther along in it's evolution than MMA,
    You do know this is happening in MMA right? I'd say, by now, SCA shouldn't be using any terms related to loosely if they are using ranks. The MMA debate is a modern parallel to the early days of the SCA.
    Last edited by It is Fake; 7/19/2012 10:10am at .
  3. painbank

    Guest

    Posted On:
    7/19/2012 10:24am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    and that is the problem with the SCA in general and why a lot of people here have issues with it as a martial art, IMO.

    Training varies by group, to the degree it can really suck or be really awesome based upon your main teacher. Some are a lot formalized as in Bellatrix style. Some are loosely taught, where the instructor will pay attention to stance, then attack/defense, then advanced topics like tempo and movement, on to the tactical concepts of setting an opponent up.

    The other problem is the SCA's loose structure will never change and that is inherently it's downfall. IMO though, this doesn't make it NOT a martial art. As you said, we can agree to disagree and move on.

    I wasn't fully aware MMA was moving in that direction.

    thanks for the discussion.
  4. captain zorikh is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    107

    Posted On:
    7/20/2012 2:02pm


     Style: bjj, sca, armored combat

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Wow, I close my eyes for a minute...

    Good conversation going on, I will weigh in soon, but just to clarify one thing: I did not start this thread to start a debate on whether the SCA combat was a martial art, rather to have a forum to clarify misconceptions about the SCA I had seen on some posts her in Bullshido. However, this being Bullsido, the martial arts definition debate is unavoidable.

    As far as I am concerned SCA combat is a sport with a ruleset, not a codified system. There are many different systems that have been found tone effective in that rules, and some of them are as different as kung fu is rm karate is from savage is from muay thai. Perhaps the question is whether there are martial arts within SCA combat.

    Gotta run, will be back soon.
  5. Permalost is offline
    Permalost's Avatar

    pro nonsense self defense

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    12,585

    Posted On:
    7/20/2012 2:10pm

    supporting member
     Style: FMA, dumbek, Indian clubs

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by captain zorikh View Post
    As far as I am concerned SCA combat is a sport with a ruleset, not a codified system. There are many different systems that have been found tone effective in that rules, and some of them are as different as kung fu is rm karate is from savage is from muay thai. Perhaps the question is whether there are martial arts within SCA combat.
    Sounds like the SCA is to historical fencing what sanshou is to kung fu.
  6. painbank

    Guest

    Posted On:
    7/20/2012 3:14pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Permalost View Post
    Sounds like the SCA is to historical fencing what sanshou is to kung fu.
    decent analogy.
  7. Vorschlag is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    31

    Posted On:
    7/21/2012 3:32am


     Style: kampfringen/savate

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Okay somehow I have failed to make my point clear so let's look at it this way.

    Our agreed definition.

    "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."

    Your point of view sca heavy is a martial art

    Mine it is a recreational sport which takes influence from sport, historical martial arts, theatre etc.

    firstly:
    "A Martial Art is required to be Codified"
    From what I have understood the only codified part of sca training is in regards to the rule system.
    You have said the rule system is not the art so all we have to go by is the number of people who have state that sca training differs from one club to another.
    This would lead us to the agreement that the system is not codified.

    secondly
    "It is required to include all the codified techniques of a specific system related to attacking/defending one self in a martial conflict"

    I have used the rule system to show that there are gaps that people will exploit and that due to this people will train to those measures, thus creating a false system which makes it unsafe to use with the above definition.

    Let me rephrase this, if you applied the method with sharps and no protective armour it would fail to protect you as both the attacks and defences are designed and trained around the rule system rather than a historical system.
    Again not attacking it I've seen enough work from w.m.a and h.e.m.a groups which falls into the same bucket.

    Since I would assume you agree with me on this point (correct me if I'm wrong) I will move on to armoured combat.

    Can the system then be safely applied in a martial context to armoured combat with sharps, historical documentation would suggest otherwise.
    The armour levels required would make the strikes valueless along with many thrusts let alone the issue with target areas for harness fighting.

    So in both cases it would fail to meet our definition.
  8. painbank

    Guest

    Posted On:
    7/21/2012 9:08am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Vorschlag View Post
    Okay somehow I have failed to make my point clear so let's look at it this way.

    Our agreed definition.

    "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."

    ...
    firstly:
    "A Martial Art is required to be Codified"
    From what I have understood the only codified part of sca training is in regards to the rule system.
    You have said the rule system is not the art so all we have to go by is the number of people who have state that sca training differs from one club to another.
    This would lead us to the agreement that the system is not codified.

    So, based upon this and our agreed definition, I would say yes, you are correct. SCA HC would not be a MA as all the various techniques are not officially codified. Could it be though? sure, and probably without too much difficulty. The key being all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vorschlag View Post
    secondly
    "It is required to include all the codified techniques of a specific system related to attacking/defending one self in a martial conflict"

    I have used the rule system to show that there are gaps that people will exploit and that due to this people will train to those measures, thus creating a false system which makes it unsafe to use with the above definition.

    Let me rephrase this, if you applied the method with sharps and no protective armour it would fail to protect you as both the attacks and defences are designed and trained around the rule system rather than a historical system.
    Again not attacking it I've seen enough work from w.m.a and h.e.m.a groups which falls into the same bucket.

    Since I would assume you agree with me on this point (correct me if I'm wrong) I will move on to armoured combat.
    You know I will. :)

    Our definition does not include the effectiveness of a martial art in a martial conflict. It just states that it can be applied, in which case it can be applied. I know how to swing a club to hit another human, so therefore if I am required to do so, I may do so effectively with that specific swing. That is for a different discussion than the one we are presently discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vorschlag View Post

    Can the system then be safely applied in a martial context to armoured combat with sharps, historical documentation would suggest otherwise.
    The armour levels required would make the strikes valueless along with many thrusts let alone the issue with target areas for harness fighting.

    So in both cases it would fail to meet our definition.
    The last part is also for a separate discussion as our definition doesn't include the discussion of the context of when a martial art is applied to a martial conflict.

    As to armour levels, depends upon what period of history you are referring to. In the end, of course the training for SCA HC would leave holes in an actual armoured martial conflict, but almost every system out there would as well. HEMA gets somewhat close, but they have a long way to go as well, imho. Some of course are better than others. Improved effectiveness of any training methodology, while remaining safe, for actual martial conflict is always the goal. different martial arts and sport/rule sets have different goals of safety.
  9. Vorschlag is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    31

    Posted On:
    7/22/2012 1:43am


     Style: kampfringen/savate

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Our definition does not include the effectiveness of a martial art in a
    martial conflict. It just states that it can be applied
    If we were to accept that as valid then we could also argue that pingpong (table tennis) could be applied as a martial art, it wont be effective but it could be applied.
  10. captain zorikh is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    107

    Posted On:
    7/22/2012 7:38am


     Style: bjj, sca, armored combat

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Vorschlag View Post
    If we were to accept that as valid then we could also argue that pingpong (table tennis) could be applied as a martial art, it wont be effective but it could be applied.
    But can ping ping be approached with a martial arts-like attitude? Yes (all jokes about "Balls of Fury" aside). Can *anything* be approached with such an attitude? Yes. Want a definition of that attitude? Start a new thread. And one of my little annoyances is people who generalize the SCA as an organization of undisciplined "tin-can bashers."

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.