SCA Combat

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

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.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 7/19/2012 10:07am

Originally Posted by painbank

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.

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

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.

**captain zorikh** · Posted On: 7/20/2012 2:02pm

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.

**Permalost** · Posted On: 7/20/2012 2:10pm

Originally Posted by captain zorikh

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.

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

Originally Posted by Permalost

Sounds like the SCA is to historical fencing what sanshou is to kung fu.

decent analogy.

**Vorschlag** · Posted On: 7/21/2012 3:32am

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.

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

Originally Posted by Vorschlag

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.

Originally Posted by Vorschlag

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.

Originally Posted by Vorschlag

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.

**Vorschlag** · Posted On: 7/22/2012 1:43am

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.

**captain zorikh** · Posted On: 7/22/2012 7:38am

Originally Posted by Vorschlag

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."