| Author |
Message |
|
Chris Fields
|
 Posted: Sat 23 Aug, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Yeah, if I were the long swordsman in those vids, I wouldn't have tried any cuts at all, just keep out of the opponents range at all times while remaining in the longsword trust range, throwing quick small trusts with quick recoveries. When you charge in as you did, he should of had his longsword planted for you to basically run right into it. I would then possibly do some cuts after an initial trust landed.
|
|
  |
 |
Mike Capanelli
|
| Posted: Sat 23 Aug, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | | Yeah, if I were the long swordsman in those vids, I wouldn't have tried any cuts at all, just keep out of the opponents range at all times while remaining in the longsword trust range, throwing quick small trusts with quick recoveries. When you charge in as you did, he should of had his longsword planted for you to basically run right into it. I would then possibly do some cuts after an initial trust landed. |
I'd also add that if you try this again, be sure your hitting and covering at the same time. It seems that after failing an attack he tends to cut over and around the other sword, pulling the shot in instead of displacing it out and bringing the point to bear at the same time. I know I'm not being very clear here but i hope you get my point. As Chris said thrusting and winding around he block would work much better.
Winter is coming
|
|
 |
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Sat 23 Aug, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Vassilis,
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
I agree with that SCA fighting is inherently based on WMA. |
That's not really possible my friend. SCA combat was devised in the late 1960's, and modified by various practitioners, sometimes with EMA experience (Paul Porter incorporated his Judo skills), in the 1970's and 80's.
Real practice of resurrected historic European fighting didn't begin until the early 1990's, so it's quite impossible that SCA fighting comes from period fighting. The people who made up SCA fighting will readily admit that too.
Beyond that, assuming your test was done SCA sword & shield vs. period longsword, it really doesn't tell us very much, beyond the obvious thing that it's difficult for a man with a two-handed sword to get around a shield. The shield man can close off an entire line of attack and he has just as much reach as the longswordsman.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
  |
|
|
Dave Smith
|
| Posted: Sat 23 Aug, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi Vassilis,
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
I agree with that SCA fighting is inherently based on WMA. |
That's not really possible my friend. SCA combat was devised in the late 1960's, and modified by various practitioners, sometimes with EMA experience (Paul Porter incorporated his Judo skills), in the 1970's and 80's.
Real practice of resurrected historic European fighting didn't begin until the early 1990's, so it's quite impossible that SCA fighting comes from period fighting. The people who made up SCA fighting will readily admit that too. |
Even though SCA combat was devised in the late 60's, since many ( if not most...) SCA practitioners now study historical WMA to some degree, wouldn't that mean the current incarnation of SCA combat is now an off-shoot of WMA in general?
The fact that both styles are based around the exact same weapons is a separate, but no less important, point.
Again, I study the "traditional" WMA method and leave SCA style combat for those who enjoy it more; I'm simply trying to see both sides of the argument. I guess you could call it playing devil's advocate? 
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Dave,
No, not really. The vast majority of SCA combatants do not study a WMA art, so the two remain, by and large, distinct. On top of that, we have little information on knightly sword and shield as practiced in period (though there's some interesting ways to extrapolate it), so given that the sword and shield is the primary mode of SCA combat, that's a big disconnect in of itself.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam N. wrote: | | Interesting results for the test cutting. One thing I noticed is that the swords that could do the wrap well were more parallel edged earlier medieval swords while later, more pointed ones (like an XV) simply could not cut that well. Perhaps it is not the difference between high end and low end (being high end certainly helps) that determines how well a wrap will work, but maybe the width of the blade. This might explain why we don't really find wraps (to my knowledge) in most manuals, because those manuals are usually from after 1300, when armour and thinner, stiffer swords start to become more popular (conditions that don't favour the wrap). A wrap seems to be more useful in less armoured circumstances with wider blades (i.e. Dark Ages, Early Medieval period). But that's just my speculation, it would be nice if anyone could shed more light on the idea. |
The swords that did not cut well in the wraps did not cut well with true edge cuts either in testing. The problem we saw is that they lacked a distill tapper. The flat of the higher end swords got thinner as it approached the tip. This meant that the the sword had less material to push aside as it cut through. This is not to say that you can not find this quality in some lower end swords, just that the ones we had on hand did not have this quality to the same degree. You still need some mass in order to make a good cut and if you are giving it up by making the blade thinner they you can make it up by making the blade wider.... hence the wide parallel edges you observed. You might ask is this an ideal fighting sword ??? They made swords with all sorts of variations over a long period of time so I think its a matter of different strokes for different folks. You can fight with anything if you use it right. The purpose of this testing was to find out if wraps can cut but I don't think that tatami cutting is the final measure of a sword. I am confident that almost anyone can deliver am incapacitating blow to the back of someone head in unarmored combat with just a blunt training sword that can't even scratch tatami.
| Quote: |
Also, just a question Vassilis. Why do thrusts seem to be uncommon in SCA heavy fighting? In most of the videos I have watched, everything seems to typically be cuts (save for a rare thrust to the face). |
There is a couple of issues at play here. From a practical point the thrust can only move as fast as you can move you hand forward. For most people that is about 40 mph. That speed is not so hard for the eye to track. The cut on the over hand is making a wider arch and is traveling about 4 times faster then your hand depending on your sword length. It is a lot easier to fool the eye when the sword tip is traveling at 160 mph. You can then play with different angles too and be tricky. Thrusts with sword and shield are most effective when they are are originate out of a cut. Most cuts will result with the tip being in line for a follow up thrust. You can also initiate a thrust to set up a follow up cut. What can not do is sit there from behind the shield poke at someone with your tip. They will be blocked every single time with their shield.
Another thing to consider when you watch video of SCA guys fighting is that you may look at it and say that they made 1 thurst and 4cuts.... on closer examination you may find that they made 1 thrust, 1 on-side, 1 off-side, 1 wrap and 1 slot shot. All different strikes with different mechanics but the cuts seem to get grouped together.
[/quote]
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi Vassilis,
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
I agree with that SCA fighting is inherently based on WMA. |
That's not really possible my friend. SCA combat was devised in the late 1960's, and modified by various practitioners, sometimes with EMA experience (Paul Porter incorporated his Judo skills), in the 1970's and 80's.
Real practice of resurrected historic European fighting didn't begin until the early 1990's, so it's quite impossible that SCA fighting comes from period fighting. The people who made up SCA fighting will readily admit that too.
Beyond that, assuming your test was done SCA sword & shield vs. period longsword, it really doesn't tell us very much, beyond the obvious thing that it's difficult for a man with a two-handed sword to get around a shield. The shield man can close off an entire line of attack and he has just as much reach as the longswordsman.
All the best,
Christian |
Sorry I screwed up what I was really getting at. I forgot myself an used WMA in the very broad sense of European fighting. I believed that was what David meant and I just went with it.
I meant to say something along the lines that SCA fighting is based on a Western tradition of shield fighting going back to the Greeks, Romans and through the middle ages in Europe. Initially they had nothing more to go on then artwork. With no detailed texts it has greatly evolved over the past 40 years borrowing from every fighting system including the European texts as they became available after the 1990's.
The person who challenged me to the duel believed the shield would not be a problem at all. He believed that it would limit my ability and that he could use it against me. I have herd other people express the same belief so it was worth the effort for me to travel cross-country and find out.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
Last edited by Bill Tsafa on Sun 24 Aug, 2008 1:09 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam N.
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There is a couple of issues at play here. From a practical point the thrust can only move as fast as you can move you hand forward. For most people that is about 40 mph. That speed is not so hard for the eye to track. The cut on the over hand is making a wider arch and is traveling about 4 times faster then your hand depending on your sword length. It is a lot easier to fool the eye when the sword tip is traveling at 160 mph. You can then play with different angles too and be tricky. Thrusts with sword and shield are most effective when they are are originate out of a cut. Most cuts will result with the tip being in line for a follow up thrust. You can also initiate a thrust to set up a follow up cut. What can not do is sit there from behind the shield poke at someone with your tip. They will be blocked every single time with their shield. |
On the flip side though, a thrust needs only to travel in a straight line while a cut must travel in an arc. Therefore, although a cut has a faster tip speed, it has a longer distance to go. In my limited experience, I have found that a thrust and a cut travel at basically the same speed because of this, though both have their own advantages. Likewise, using a disengage/cavazione and/or a change of target (i.e. from head to body) a thrust can also be quite tricky. In fact, I would say that it is far easier to change the target of a thrust than it is to change the target of a cut during mid action. However, I do agree that it is quite effective to use a thust in the manner you described as a follow up from a missed cut or to set up a follow up cut.
I think an interesting comparison would be between techniques commonly used in SCA Sword and Shield and those used by the Bolognese School and Di Grassi for Sword and Target (and spada and imbracciatura for the Bolognese school as well). The conditions are quite similar, unarmoured with a large or medium sized shield. Here is one example I could pull from YouTube, a duel/assault by the Sala D'Arme Achille Marozzo in Bologna http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyzHmM22fWk. One difference I can already see are some stances that seem to use the shield to protect the upper body while simultaneously using the sword to threaten/attack the lower body and legs. Another difference is the use of swordhand forward, shield back stances (perhaps facilitating easier initial thrusts?).
Anyways, I am sure there are people who can better make this comparison than I can (perhaps someone more knowledgable on Early 16th Century sword and target can chime in?  )
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Awesome link Sam. I noticed that since they were making most of their cuts from the wrist. I am guessing they use lighter weapons to simulate later period swords. The shields they use are a bit smaller and lighter so they are more maneuverable. Every different style shield has a different fighting style with some commonalities. I started my duel out with a low sword guard but abandoned it for a higher guard when I realized my legs not at great risk. I would not miss an opportunity to sparr with those guys and pick up a few new tricks to add to my arsenal.
I was going to mention the difficulty of dept perception on an incoming thrust but I think you covered it. As George Silver put it "there is not perfect fight without both cut and thrust".
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam N.
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Can a cut from the wrist work in SCA Heavy, or is it to light to "feel" through armour? Has anyone attempted using a light shield in SCA Heavy and fighting like the Marozzo people do? I am curious because I will soon be settling in Toronto for University and might join the SCA group there for the sake of practicing my own studies in rapier. However, if a 16th Century sword and target style like this is feasible for heavy, I might give that a shot as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Pengryffyn
Location: Canberra, Australia Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, I'm confused.
I've only recently gotten back into the 'sword-swinging community', for want of a better term, after a twenty year absence. Some things have changed a lot. There are a lot more period manuals available now in translation and in the original, and they're much more accessible, thanks to the internet. There are decent reproduction swords available now, of a bewildering range of styles and periods, at a price most of us can afford, in both blunt versions for sparring and sharp versions for cutting. It's very exciting, but this whole "WMA thing" has me confused.
I thought WMA stood for "Western Martial Arts", and included all the martial-arts-type systems originating in the west and/or focusing on western weapons. So, to my mind, that included such things as Savate and le canne, shillelagh play etc, as well as the more recent revivals of longsword and rapier. Wouldn't sca fighting fit into this model, given that their fighting systems are based on what little is known about the historical styles, extrapolated to fill in the gaps? Isn't that similar to the way the modern students of Silver, the fechtbücher and the Italian treatises have worked, admittedly with a greater volume of more detailed material. After all, you can't learn a martial art from a book. The book can only give you a guide, to be filled in with experimentation and long study. Or have I got it all wrong?
To my eyes, the difference between the SCA and other groups is a philosophical one. The SCA has a principle of inclusivity- it wants everyone to be able to play, irrespective of finances or skill level. So, the armor and weapons may not always be pretty or historically accurate, but as long as the fighter has enough skill and knowledge to avoid hurting themselves or others, and their gear fulfills the same criterion, they can participate. In my past experience of the SCA, people started as bashers in poor armour, but were encouraged over time to improve the quality of their techniques and their equipment. Most did. From what I've been reading that hasn't changed.
Other groups take a more exclusive approach, in which students are required to demonstrate high levels of skill before being allowed to spar freely. Given the less rule-oriented nature of their play, the use of hardwood wasters or metal blunts, and the frequent use of minimal armour, this is a necessity if serious injuries are to be avoided. This approach generally allows far fewer people to participate, but arguably at a much higher average level of skill and 'historical accuracy' (as far as that can be judged).
Please, please note that I'm *not* arguing that one approach is better than the other! I simply think that they are approaching the mountain top from different directions. I firmly believe that all students of the sword can and should learn from each other, and that all approaches have some value. I'm certainly not trying to annoy anyone. I'm simply trying to understand the current situation as it appears to me after a long absence.
So, to return to the start, I'm confused. Why *isn't* SCA fighting a Western Martial Art? What am I missing?
BTW- excellent videos! I enjoyed them hugely. Thanks so much for posting them.
Tradition is the illusion of permanence.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
SCA is a modern martial sport with a historical flair. It is not based off of historical fighting arts any more than American football is. Yes, it has overlaps, as do many physical activities, because there is only so large of a range that the human body has.
So, you might argue that SCA is a western martial art because it evolved in the western hemisphere. It is not, however, a historical martial art (unless if you count the 1960s as historical). This is not a knock on SCA fighting: It is what it is. It isn't a difference in philosophy, but a difference in what the players are attempting to accomplish.
It is also somewhat of a losing game to try to mix and mash historical western martial arts usage with SCA fighting due to the fact that SCA fighting has evolved to work specifically for SCA rules, whereas historical martial arts had evolved to fight in life or death situations. It is the same reason you won't see historical martial arts usage in the modern sport of fencing. For that matter, its also the same reason you see separate techniques used for kendo as opposed to kenjutsu: One has a sportive aspect where a certain level of playing to the rules affects how you use your techniques.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
An aspect of some SCA events that I appreciate is an attempt to simulate mass infantry formations and battle situations. The group battle setting, variety of weapons, ensuing chaos, etc. has a high degree risk that requires a lot of safety precautions. The precautions may not be historical, but are really justified in my opinion.
I am wondering how many other sport combat groups regularly attempt to simulate the type of mass battle situations that were historically a part of Western medieval European history?
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Pengryffyn
Location: Canberra, Australia Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | SCA is a modern martial sport with a historical flair. It is not based off of historical fighting arts any more than American football is. Yes, it has overlaps, as do many physical activities, because there is only so large of a range that the human body has.
So, you might argue that SCA is a western martial art because it evolved in the western hemisphere. It is not, however, a historical martial art (unless if you count the 1960s as historical). This is not a knock on SCA fighting: It is what it is. It isn't a difference in philosophy, but a difference in what the players are attempting to accomplish.
It is also somewhat of a losing game to try to mix and mash historical western martial arts usage with SCA fighting due to the fact that SCA fighting has evolved to work specifically for SCA rules, whereas historical martial arts had evolved to fight in life or death situations.It is the same reason you won't see historical martial arts usage in the modern sport of fencing. For that matter, its also the same reason you see separate techniques used for kendo as opposed to kenjutsu: One has a sportive aspect where a certain level of playing to the rules affects how you use your techniques. |
Thanks Bill. Yes I can understand why SCA fighting isn't referred to as a historical martial art. As I understand it, that's covered by the term HEMA- for Historical European Martial Art. Right? That's why I'm confused that both Vassilis and Christian seem to agree that its not even a WMA, since I've been under the impression that that term was, as I said, even used for such recent arts as Le Canne.
I might also disagree (respectfully of course!) that SCA "is not based off of historical fighting arts any more than American football is". When I started SCA fighting some thirty years ago we had very little access to historical training manuals, and there are in fact few if any surviving from the early or high middle ages I gather. But we did study closely what materials there were available, from historical accounts of battles and individual combats to diagrams and illuminated manuscripts. Not nearly as good as having a decent translation of Liechtenauer or Marozzo I confess, but if the sources are lacking you do the best you can with what little you've got. I agree that SCA fighting of necessity has less historical support than those of later periods, but I don't think it's entirely a-historical either.
Also, I suspect too much attention is placed on the competitive form of SCA combat, the rules of which are primarily intended to prevent injury. Karateka may engage in full-contact competitions, which have a lot of rules and arguably don't simulate real fighting, but does that mean Karate isn't a martial art? I always saw SCA combats as a form of spectacle, and part of your training was geared towards that format, but we also spent a lot of time and effort trying to discover techniques that would have been effective in actual combat.
I don't think the comparison with fencing or kendo is entirely valid, since hits in SCA combat aren't gauged by an arbitrary set of rules, but by the individual's judgement of whether the blow would have been crippling if the weapons were real. There's no historical sparring format that acts that way, as far as I know, although some tournament play and later prizematches have comparable aspects. To my mind, SCA competitions are analogous to the full-contact bouts of martial arts like karate. If that's all you do, and all your training is geared towards it, then you're getting more sport-like and less martial-artish.But certainly in my day, and I suspect even now, that isn't the totality of SCA combat.
Regarding- "historical martial arts had evolved to fight in life or death situations"- I think that's true, but I don't believe that stayed their sole purpose for very long. From my reading of the sword schools of the renaissance and after, people had as many reasons for attending them then as people have for attending martial arts classes now. There's a strong element of self-defence, but also maintaining fitness, socializing and more-or-less friendly competition. Does the competitive dussack play of the german schools differ that much from what the SCA does?
Thanks for your reply, and I hope you take my respectful disagreements in the spirit in which they are intended. I'm not trying to be dogmatic about any of this, I'm just trying to get it all clear in my mind.
Tradition is the illusion of permanence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Smith
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hello Dave,
The vast majority of SCA combatants do not study a WMA art, so the two remain, by and large, distinct. |
Fair enough. I was simply working on hearsay concerning that little point.
| vassilis tsafatinos wrote: | | Sorry I screwed up what I was really getting at. I forgot myself an used WMA in the very broad sense of European fighting. I believed that was what David meant and I just went with it. |
You didn't really screw up, I meant it in a very broad sense. My second post was more of a musing than anything else. I was just curious what others would say in response to said musing.
I do apologize though, I should have been more clear as to what I was getting at.
Thanks again to everyone for all the information and thoughts. As someone who doesn't follow SCA, this fills in a lot of informational gaps for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Beyond that, assuming your test was done SCA sword & shield vs. period longsword, it really doesn't tell us very much, beyond the obvious thing that it's difficult for a man with a two-handed sword to get around a shield. The shield man can close off an entire line of attack and he has just as much reach as the longswordsman. |
To be fair, did any period master suggest the longsword was at a disadvantage against the sword and shield? We know Silver gave odds to the longsword in that fight.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Marc,
| Marc Pengryffyn wrote: | | Thanks Bill. Yes I can understand why SCA fighting isn't referred to as a historical martial art. As I understand it, that's covered by the term HEMA- for Historical European Martial Art. Right? That's why I'm confused that both Vassilis and Christian seem to agree that its not even a WMA, since I've been under the impression that that term was, as I said, even used for such recent arts as Le Canne. |
Well, arts such as La Canne are martial arts because the intent is to train for martial encounters. SCA is not: It is a combat sport, but does not have a real-world aspect to it.
| Quote: | | I might also disagree (respectfully of course!) that SCA "is not based off of historical fighting arts any more than American football is". When I started SCA fighting some thirty years ago we had very little access to historical training manuals, and there are in fact few if any surviving from the early or high middle ages I gather. But we did study closely what materials there were available, from historical accounts of battles and individual combats to diagrams and illuminated manuscripts. Not nearly as good as having a decent translation of Liechtenauer or Marozzo I confess, but if the sources are lacking you do the best you can with what little you've got. I agree that SCA fighting of necessity has less historical support than those of later periods, but I don't think it's entirely a-historical either. |
I see where you're coming from. It still, however, is a style that was *invented* by people who have never fought in a historical combative context. It wasn't based on techniques from earlier martial arts, but was instead a form that was fleshed out by modern people, *inspired* by the ideas of historical combat.
| Quote: | | Also, I suspect too much attention is placed on the competitive form of SCA combat, the rules of which are primarily intended to prevent injury. Karateka may engage in full-contact competitions, which have a lot of rules and arguably don't simulate real fighting, but does that mean Karate isn't a martial art? I always saw SCA combats as a form of spectacle, and part of your training was geared towards that format, but we also spent a lot of time and effort trying to discover techniques that would have been effective in actual combat. |
The thing about karate, though, is that the sport aspect is meant to compliment the martial art aspect. The two are used together, with the understanding of what is artificial in the rules. In SCA combat, you train in order to do SCA fighting.
| Quote: | | I don't think the comparison with fencing or kendo is entirely valid, since hits in SCA combat aren't gauged by an arbitrary set of rules, but by the individual's judgement of whether the blow would have been crippling if the weapons were real. |
Well, the gauging of the power of the blow is very arbitrary. In fact, the rules are that you are supposed to strike as if you were blasting through the armor (which goes against the very teachings of historical fight masters). I would argue that both Kendo and Fencing are, in fact, far more historically accurate than SCA, because the rules have evolved from a direct lineage, and were used historically to compliment martial training. The rules aren't arbitrary; they were developed with specific reasons for training. (Right-of-way, for instance, is possibly one of the most important rules I've ever known in any combat sport, and yet it is the first rule that modern people seem to complain about). SCA rules are not about developing better fighters: They are rules to fit the requirements of SCA participants (safety, fairness, fun, etc).
| Quote: | | There's no historical sparring format that acts that way, as far as I know, although some tournament play and later prizematches have comparable aspects. To my mind, SCA competitions are analogous to the full-contact bouts of martial arts like karate. If that's all you do, and all your training is geared towards it, then you're getting more sport-like and less martial-artish.But certainly in my day, and I suspect even now, that isn't the totality of SCA combat. |
I agree with you, and I think you're definately right: Not everyone in SCA is only interested in the sportive aspect.
| Quote: | | Regarding- "historical martial arts had evolved to fight in life or death situations"- I think that's true, but I don't believe that stayed their sole purpose for very long. From my reading of the sword schools of the renaissance and after, people had as many reasons for attending them then as people have for attending martial arts classes now. There's a strong element of self-defence, but also maintaining fitness, socializing and more-or-less friendly competition. |
I completely agree that it wasn't always about life or death encounters all of the time, and that there were many reasons to train in martial arts. But the arts themselves are rooted in the idea of actual martial encounters.
| Quote: | | Does the competitive dussack play of the german schools differ that much from what the SCA does? |
Yes, very much so: The dussack play was practiced as a sport side-by-side with martial training. The sport developed timing, pressure under fire, and even aggression. But the practitioners were still training with the techniques that were too dangerous for free-play, and were still very aware of what they had to leave out in order to safely practice. I don't think you can say the same is true of the vast majority of modern combat sports (not just SCA).
For example, how many SCA combatants seriously practice grappling as part of their SCA training? How many train with dagger techniques for when they are disarmed? Sure, the SCA mass combat rules may not allow these techniques... but if you seriously train them anyway, as our historical predecessors did, then you have a much better understanding of how real combat works. If you aren't training those techniques, then you are only doing the game aspect. And *that* to me is why I don't consider SCA combat a martial art. That doesn't diminish what it is, but I do think we shouldn't kid ourselves about that.
I think it is akin to playing paintball every weekend, and claiming to have the same training as a special forces Marine... you can be a pretty hard-core paintball player, and it might require an incredible level of skill and dedication, but if that's all you train for, then it simply isn't combat.
| Quote: | | Thanks for your reply, and I hope you take my respectful disagreements in the spirit in which they are intended. |
Oh, absolutely! And in turn, I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to downplay SCA. I don't have any problems with it... I just hope people understand what it is and what it isn't. To be fair, I don't think most of the modern revival of historical WMA is at a level where free play against groups such as SCA proves anything, because we in the WMA world have too few years on our belts... give us another twenty years of research and training, and that might be a different story.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Pengryffyn
Location: Canberra, Australia Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | And *that* to me is why I don't consider SCA combat a martial art... |
Bill,
Thanks for expanding those points- I understsand much better what you're saying now. I think I even agree with it! I certainly didn't think you were belittling SCA fighting, I just couldn't quite see why it isn't considered a martial art.
That said, perhaps SCA-style fighting, divorced form its competitive format, can be a very valuable *element* of wider western martial sword training, even if just one element amongst many. Particularly the ability to fight at full speed, with full power blows against an opponent doing the same. Can other, more directly martial systems replicate that aspect?
Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply!
Marc
Tradition is the illusion of permanence.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marc Pengryffyn wrote: | | That said, perhaps SCA-style fighting, divorced form its competitive format, can be a very valuable *element* of wider western martial sword training, even if just one element amongst many. |
Oh, I think that if an SCA combatant was doing it side by side with another martial art, it could be quite complimentary, *if* the participants involved have a concioius understanding of what compromises they are making. After all, any sort of sparring or free fencing, of any kind, is going to be fake to a certain degree, whether that's boxing or judo.
| Quote: | | Particularly the ability to fight at full speed, with full power blows against an opponent doing the same. Can other, more directly martial systems replicate that aspect? |
Many arts do this. When I practice with the Liechtenauer tradition, for example, there are multiple layers to it. On one hand, I practice the plays passed down by the masters of the tradition. I practice the concepts with specific drills designed to increase my ability to perform those techniques under pressure. I practice physical conditioning. I occassionally do test cutting. And I also do various levels of free fencing. Sometimes the free fencing is full contact bouting with limited rules (except those designed to keep my partner and I safe), and at other times we use very regimented rules designed to practice certain aspects (sometimes limiting target areas, sometimes allowing one combatant to make an extra attack after being hit, sometimes limiting what types of attacks are valid, etc). To me, the ability to perform in a sparring environment is only one aspect of training (because there are some people who are great at sparring but fall apart under real pressure), but when used as one element out of a greater whole, it can be used quite effectively.
But now I'm getting way off-topic.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam N. wrote: | | Can a cut from the wrist work in SCA Heavy, or is it to light to "feel" through armour? Has anyone attempted using a light shield in SCA Heavy and fighting like the Marozzo people do? I am curious because I will soon be settling in Toronto for University and might join the SCA group there for the sake of practicing my own studies in rapier. However, if a 16th Century sword and target style like this is feasible for heavy, I might give that a shot as well. |
Generally speaking... wrist cuts are too light for SCA fighting. In SCA we are all assumed to be wearing mail and open face helmets regardless of what we are actually wearing. It is 11th to 13th century fighting or Crusader era if that is easier to picture. The are no rules against wrist cuts, so if you can make one hard enough for people to acknowledge you are certainly free to do so.
| Marc Pengryffyn wrote: |
Thanks Bill. Yes I can understand why SCA fighting isn't referred to as a historical martial art. As I understand it, that's covered by the term HEMA- for Historical European Martial Art. Right? That's why I'm confused that both Vassilis and Christian seem to agree that its not even a WMA, since I've been under the impression that that term was, as I said, even used for such recent arts as Le Canne.
|
Think of the term WMA as a definition rather that what the words themselves actually mean. WMA has come to specificaly refer to techniques derived specificaly from some historical text. In that community even if a technique works it is not acceptable if it can not be linked to some historic record. Most people in the SCA are comfortable with this separation because it gives us a point of reference in what we are doing.
Part of the reason for the duel I fought and the tests is to gage how effective SCA fighting would be against discipline restricted only to the methods shown in the texts. Likewise I limited myself to using SCA rules, I did not do any shield-bashing or the like. So both systems where tested within their own constraints against each other.
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
Well, arts such as La Canne are martial arts because the intent is to train for martial encounters. SCA is not: It is a combat sport, but does not have a real-world aspect to it.
|
That is why we tested with no rules. Grappling, punching, kicking, low leg hits, hand strikes were all allowed. We used steel blunts. How much more real can you get without putting one person six feet in the ground.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
To be fair, did any period master suggest the longsword was at a disadvantage against the sword and shield? We know Silver gave odds to the longsword in that fight. |
Good point. I forgot about him.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
Last edited by Bill Tsafa on Sun 24 Aug, 2008 8:44 pm; edited 4 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Aug, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | Sam N. wrote: | | Can a cut from the wrist work in SCA Heavy, or is it to light to "feel" through armour? Has anyone attempted using a light shield in SCA Heavy and fighting like the Marozzo people do? I am curious because I will soon be settling in Toronto for University and might join the SCA group there for the sake of practising my own studies in rapier. However, if a 16th Century sword and target style like this is feasible for heavy, I might give that a shot as well. |
Generally speaking... wrist cuts are too light for SCA fighting. In SCA we are all assumed to be wearing mail and open face helmets regardless of what we are actually wearing. It is 11th to 13th century fighting or Crusader era if that is easier to picture. The are no rules against wrist cuts, so if you can make one hard enough for people to acknowledge you are certainly free to do so. |
Depending on time period forearms, legs and faces would be good targets for light cuts: Light for armour can be very wounding on unprotected flesh.
On maille cuts by swords would mostly be blunt trauma injuries or temporary incapacitations that might leave the recipient open to more effective cuts. Not sure how effective thrusts are against mailles with the more cut specialized swords but I would see more use of thrusts.
Swords would be a back up weapon in my opinion with the spear, axe or mace being more effective in the maille and shield periods.
For the sake of a sports or game I guess one can put naming the winner of an exchange at the top of the priority list, while in a martial arts training context, one might concede that in some cases the winner could be impossible to determine with certainty but one can focus more on how well the technique put one or the other in a position to potentially be the winner ?
In other words the same actions can be used to win or used to learn depending on if one is practising the sport or trying to learn the martial art ...... one could even judge the same event using both criteria in turn ?
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic