| Author |
Message |
|
Patrick de Marchi
Location: Montréal, Qc, Canada Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 5
|
 Posted: Wed 23 Sep, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | Yep, the guard of the foot is often a good one. ;-)
We also do play with other schools, but you have to know somewhat whether they teach any form of control and set up/discuss the rules of play before hand to be safe. After all, I do this for a recreational and sport activity, not as warfare. ;-) |
Agreed!
|
|
   |
 |
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Sep, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bryce Felperin wrote: |
We also do play with other schools, but you have to know somewhat whether they teach any form of control and set up/discuss the rules of play before hand to be safe. After all, I do this for a recreational and sport activity, not as warfare. ;-) |
I think it's easier for a group that uses control to adapt to more contact with the addition of protective gear than it is for a group using full power blows to instantly acquire control if they never practiced it before: So if there is a bout using maximum control and little protection, as the agreed about rules of engagement, the group used to heavy protection will have trouble controlling their hits as they are not trained to do so even if they are honestly trying to use good control.
Control is a skill in itself and not instantly acquired: One can ratchet down control that one has when it is safe to do so, but one can't magically acquire control one hasn't practiced. ( Although, even a group using armour and heavy hitting can and should also practice control at the very least in solo practice or during drills as they will benefit from the greater accuracy ).
On the other hand when first doing test cutting when one is always using control there is a mental block that one must compensate for to actually hit the target and it takes a bit of practice to actually hit the target or not miss it by a hair.  
I know that after many years/decades of avoiding hitting table lamps when playing with swords in the house means that if I don't concentrate hard on hitting I will often miss a target by a few millimeters ..... really funny not being able to hit anything without over compensating by visualizing hitting through or slightly below a target.  
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Sep, 2009 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | I think it's easier for a group that uses control to adapt to more contact with the addition of protective gear than it is for a group using full power blows to instantly acquire control if they never practiced it before: So if there is a bout using maximum control and little protection, as the agreed about rules of engagement, the group used to heavy protection will have trouble controlling their hits as they are not trained to do so even if they are honestly trying to use good control. |
I agree completely with this, and want to add that not enough groups/people emphasis control enough in their training. It has uses in combat, it's not just for free play.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Sep, 2009 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | I think it's easier for a group that uses control to adapt to more contact with the addition of protective gear than it is for a group using full power blows to instantly acquire control if they never practiced it before: So if there is a bout using maximum control and little protection, as the agreed about rules of engagement, the group used to heavy protection will have trouble controlling their hits as they are not trained to do so even if they are honestly trying to use good control. |
I agree completely with this, and want to add that not enough groups/people emphasis control enough in their training. It has uses in combat, it's not just for free play. |
Very useful for feints or any time a trajectory has to seems like a real attack to suck the opponent in and to be able to control a change in trajectory quickly and fluidly.
I can imagine control to be even more subtle than feints since control is not only being able to stop suddenly but also be able to start or change the nature of one's handling on the sword from hard to soft, know and control where it's going and how hard or softly.
I would think that fühlen and control are related skills: A delicate touch or sensitivity to touch ( sword to sword in the bind ).
( Note: The above are not so much a statement of facts but just reacting to your words and giving feedback about what I conclude from your words, and seeing if my conclusions make sense to you i.e. did I understand correctly and extrapolate correctly ? ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Sep, 2009 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | Interesting article, thought provoking even though my thought process is currently severely hampered by the lack of sleep  Here are a few remarks in no particular order, I wrote them as I read through:
1) I can't really agree with that one:
| Quote: | | Fighting a suicidal fencer, that is a fencer willing to give his life to kill you—or in the case of bouting someone without sufficient training and/or understanding to react appropriately to an attack—is like fighting someone armed with a sword when you yourself are unarmed. That is, in theory you should be able to do this, but in practice you’re probably going to get creamed. |
True, it is harder to fight someone willing to die in order to take you. But you seem to imply that it does not happen in real life at all... I think you'd get exactly the same problem fighting for real, especially so if all the fighters are being told that the best defense is the offense. The only difference is the risk taken, losing your life or losing the game, but the gain is proportionally smaller as well. Given the chance, no one takes the double when they see any solution that prevents themselves from being hit; but at some point you have to take the chance.
I don't think many people behave in a true suicidal way as you describe, even in bouting, and I'm sure at least that you don't win a tournament behaving like that either.
|
Well, I do find that if I focus only on getting in a strike or a hit and my training partner also concentrates only on the attack we will often attack simultaneously and not defend against what would be a fatal attack and it does result in dual kills.
One is so focussed on the attack that one forgets to notice the other's attack and one doesn't react at all to the other's attack: A lot of this is because there is no real danger and I'm sure I would be a lot more careful if I was facing a sharp or if we were both wired to get a very painful shock if the edge or the point of my opponent's sword touched me.
Just a joke but if we fought with electric eels instead instead of swords maybe we would have the needed fear to be more careful.  
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Sep, 2009 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been advocating doggie shock collars for some time now with an instructor's finger on the buttons during freeplay.
Fail to close the line, ZAP !
Double Kill, ZAP!
Only "Hand Snipe" without closing, ZAP!
Plunge in with the "Reset Button Mentality ", ZAP! ZAP! ZAP!
Muhahahahahahaha 
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Sep, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | I think you'd get exactly the same problem fighting for real, especially so if all the fighters are being told that the best defense is the offense. The only difference is the risk taken, losing your life or losing the game, |
Hi Vincent,
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, which is obviously no surprise since I put it in the article.
I don't want to get into the whole thing, since my views are pretty much laid out in the article, but there are two major things I want to point out (or point out again, as the case may be).
1. The medieval German soucres tell us time and again that if we attack, our opponent must defend. Regardless of my own theories and speculations, I am stuyding a medieval art from the words these people wrote. I have to believe what they tell me or I'm wasting my time.
2. Having bouted a great deal, and having been in life or death situations a couple of times, I can tell you that they are not remotely related. Your psychology is completely different...like you're a different person. That little difference in risk you mention basically creates a magnetic pole shift of the brain. When life is on the line, you don't just ignore a mortal threat.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Sep, 2009 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Teague wrote: | I've been advocating doggie shock collars for some time now with an instructor's finger on the buttons during freeplay.
Fail to close the line, ZAP !
Double Kill, ZAP!
Only "Hand Snipe" without closing, ZAP!
Plunge in with the "Reset Button Mentality ", ZAP! ZAP! ZAP!
Muhahahahahahaha |
Put me down for 20 of the things. btw...I have not forgotten that it was you that coined the phrase "Reset Button Mentality". Thank you.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2009 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | [ btw...I have not forgotten that it was you that coined the phrase "Reset Button Mentality". Thank you. |
When my body has failed me...
long after I'm dead...
I'll be remembered as "that guy" who coined the phrase "Reset Button Mentality"
My true gift to the WMA world.
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2009 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | 1. The medieval German soucres tell us time and again that if we attack, our opponent must defend. Regardless of my own theories and speculations, I am stuyding a medieval art from the words these people wrote. I have to believe what they tell me or I'm wasting my time. |
I understand that, but these people were not perfect either, so a discrepancy between bouting and what they wrote does not automatically imply a discrepancy between bouting and "real fights". Otherwise you wouldn't have several traditions with several tactical approaches... So perhaps this artifact is due to a shortcoming of our interpretation or even of the sources themselves.
I personally think that the biggest artifact is that bouting is taking place between people familiar with the sources and actually trained in the art (often the same art). This may not even be the case that most sources adress (Thibault for example shows clearly asymetric fights, Fabris also has words about this problem I think, that if both fighters know what the other guy is trying to do the techniques will be less expeditive).
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2009 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
1) I can't really agree with that one:
| Quote: | | Fighting a suicidal fencer, that is a fencer willing to give his life to kill you—or in the case of bouting someone without sufficient training and/or understanding to react appropriately to an attack—is like fighting someone armed with a sword when you yourself are unarmed. That is, in theory you should be able to do this, but in practice you’re probably going to get creamed. |
True, it is harder to fight someone willing to die in order to take you. But you seem to imply that it does not happen in real life at all... I think you'd get exactly the same problem fighting for real, especially so if all the fighters are being told that the best defense is the offense. The only difference is the risk taken, losing your life or losing the game, but the gain is proportionally smaller as well. Given the chance, no one takes the double when they see any solution that prevents themselves from being hit; but at some point you have to take the chance.
I don't think many people behave in a true suicidal way as you describe, even in bouting, and I'm sure at least that you don't win a tournament behaving like that either.
|
It happens with rule systems that award points only to the first hit. The hit taken a fraction of a second later doesn't count at all, so the suicidal fencer doesn't care. Even worse are foil rules, where a stop-hit doesn't even score a point. Works in games, but who would do this in a real fight? It could happen in real life, especially with fighters who have trained in such games. IIRC, Burton comments on this (and on the reset-button mentality) in Sentiment of the Sword.
But I don't think that it's entirely bad to play against such opponents. A steady diet of such would be rather dull, but it can be good experience. Lots of techniques that are well-suited for the occasion, so you get to practice them.
The risky-attacker is a different story. Not suicidal as such, but takes risks. Consider, in a duel to incapacitation, each participant has less than a 50% chance of coming out un-incapacitated, all else being equal. To make risky attacks can increase the chance of double-hits, so reduces this chance of survival, so what's the point? But if outclassed, one's chance of coming out intact is very low, so there's little to lose by taking risks. If one gains surprise by doing so, it can improve one's chances. Again, Burton discusses this.
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
2) The weighted shinai can actually be quite close to the real thing, or at least I believe so without having measured a lot of them to compare.
The normal shinai has actually two problems as far as balance is concerned. First, it is too light, as you rightly point out. Second, the mass is too spread along the length, i.e. it is closer to a stick than to a sword.
When weight is added around the cross area, the shinai gets heavier and its mass is more concentrated at the cross. This makes it a lot closer to a real sword. If you look at real swords their mass is actually distributed exactly like that: a light stick with a big point mass at the cross.
This does not mean that you cannot go wrong when weighing the shinais, but you can certainly get close to the mark.
|
Weight a shinai by adding mass at the cross until it's the weight of a sword will not make it handle like a sword. The mass is importent, the point-of-balance is important, and the distribution of mass is also important (technically, what you want is for the sword-simulator to have the moment of inertia of a sword as well as the mass and balance of a sword if you're after identical handling).
While the mass of a shinai is distributed stick-like rather than sword-like, it's so light that its moment of inertia is lower than that of a sword. Not as much lower than that of a sword in comparison to the masses, but still lower.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2009 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | It happens with rule systems that award points only to the first hit. The hit taken a fraction of a second later doesn't count at all, so the suicidal fencer doesn't care. Even worse are foil rules, where a stop-hit doesn't even score a point. Works in games, but who would do this in a real fight? It could happen in real life, especially with fighters who have trained in such games. IIRC, Burton comments on this (and on the reset-button mentality) in Sentiment of the Sword. |
Actually, a stop-hit does score a point in foil. However, only if it is done correctly so-as to actually prevent you from getting hit in turn. While I'm not the biggest fan of foil's rules of right of way, they certainly don't prevent proper counterattacks. What they don't do is allow you to score by ignoring the initial attack of your opponent. In fact, the right of way rules were originally part of a pedagogy to encourage safe fencing. Ignoring what the sport of fencing is for the moment (i.e. quite distant from its martial roots), let's look at a few scenarios briefly;
1. Opponent attacks, pauses, then renews attack, but you hit him during the pause. In this case, you win the point. Your opponent, by not immediately renewing the attack has given you an opportunity to switch from defense to offense. By attacking after his pause, he has ignored your threat.
2. Opponent attacks, in response to his attack, you counterattack. However, his attack lands. You lose the point, regardless of whether or not your attack hit him. Since your counterattack did not prevent his attack, it was a flawed technique. Whether or not you hit him is irrelevant--he hit you.
3. Opponent attacks, in response to his attack, you counterattack. In this case, you counterattack either includes a void, or is performed such that your sword simultaneously moves his from the target while hitting him. You win the point. The counterattack was executed properly, it both hit your opponent and prevented him from doing the same.
4. Opponent attacks and you parry this attack. Then, during your riposte, your opponent attacks again and both weapons hit. You win the point; your opponent, after making an attack, neglected his defense.
Generally, in any scenario where only one fencer lands a hit, that hit counts, regardless of the action, who attacked first, or any other circumstances. The only exception might be if we started to take into account the effect of off-target hits on scoring.
Note that right of way in foil is only used when both fencers hit. It does not prevent any attacks; however, it prevents certain tactics--such as giving a point to win a point. While not perfect, these rules were used as a method to eliminate certain artifacts from free-play (at the expense of adding others).
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2009 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | I personally think that the biggest artifact is that bouting is taking place between people familiar with the sources and actually trained in the art (often the same art). |
And taught by the same instructor(s).
I agree, we do need to mix the art of a bit via freeplay: backsword vs small sword or rapier, messer vs longsword, arming sword vs sword & buckler , spear vs poleaxe et al.
Different schools of the art facing each other( with unlike weapons when possible).
You're right about people being trained in the same art, we all draw from the same sources (known bag of tricks) within our systems. I'm not going to surprise any of my people with the five "hidden hews" nor anybody else who studies Liechtenauer art as they are no longer hidden from the masses thanks to the internet, DVDs and the printed page. Anybody who's studied Thomas Page's Use of the Highland Broadsword should be aware of his tricks to win the first cut with the broadsword when facing me with that weapon.
What makes it fun is mixing it up. The "unfair fight" in freeplay can be a great learning tool.
Cheers,
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Bryce Felperin
Location: San Jose, CA Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 552
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2009 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David Teague wrote: | I've been advocating doggie shock collars for some time now with an instructor's finger on the buttons during freeplay.
Fail to close the line, ZAP !
Double Kill, ZAP!
Only "Hand Snipe" without closing, ZAP!
Plunge in with the "Reset Button Mentality ", ZAP! ZAP! ZAP!
Muhahahahahahaha |
ROFL!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2009 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | It happens with rule systems that award points only to the first hit. The hit taken a fraction of a second later doesn't count at all, so the suicidal fencer doesn't care. Even worse are foil rules, where a stop-hit doesn't even score a point. |
Actually, a stop-hit does score a point in foil. |
Interesting. I appear to have been oppressed by profoundly bad foil judging when last I fenced foil. Two decades ago, but I don't think the 2004(?) rule changes were that major.
My apologies to the foil rules (but not to profoundly bad foil judging)!
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2009 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | Interesting. I appear to have been oppressed by profoundly bad foil judging when last I fenced foil. Two decades ago, but I don't think the 2004(?) rule changes were that major.
My apologies to the foil rules (but not to profoundly bad foil judging)! |
Well, I don't know what the refs were calling; however, if you you were falling within example 3 (i.e. only one light went on), then you were being robbed. However, if you were falling within example 2 (i.e. both lights went on), then the calls were correct. The point of right of way is only to provide a system to determine whose hit counts when both fencers hit simultaneously. If only one light comes on, it doesn't matter how the attack was delivered or what the other fencer was doing, the point is good (barring such things as running off the strip, etc.) Of course, right of way has its own weaknesses and now survives only as a rule to adapt and use to one's advantage.
Of interest are the few rules we know from Bolognese swordsmanship (i.e. when they were bouting). We know from Manciolino and The Anonymous that all hits were scored as one point except for the head, which was scored three and the foot which was scored two (in recognition of the skill required to hit it). However, after a hit, the swordsman was allowed to take one step to respond (presumably this meant an immediate step). While this also has drawbacks, I find that it also has interesting implications. For one, you can ignore hand snipers provided that when they attack the hand, you can step forward and deliver a strike to the head. Additionally, even if you hit first, it doesn't matter if you don't cover yourself on the way out.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2009 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah when bouting we count most hits as " minor " but any to the head or thrust to the upper body as a " major " hit.
We also have a count of 3 after a major hit where the fight can continue so as to not stop defending or attacking after the " major " hit has been declared: Oh, we don't even bother with designating who got the major hit in during those 3 seconds and even though we might discuss it after we don't make a big deal in identifying " the winner ".
The scoring system in our case really isn't one so much as to be able to decide who won but when the fight is over: One major hit or two minor ones by the same person stops the fight.
Now in a sporting system fairly determining a " winner " is something important, but for training in a martial art it's mostly a safety measure and to give some feedback about what just happened. It's also not considered by us to be a very accurate way to declare a winner since things happen so fast and depending on the angle from which the " judge " was judging, and where he or she was looking, it's very difficult to be sure about what exactly happened. ( At least very difficult without instant playback from 3 angles in slow motion ! ).
But we are using bouting as a learning tool and that we try to minimize the " winning at all costs " mindset.
A scoring system is interesting and useful but only when making a game or sport out of the activity and there is nothing wrong with the sporting approach except that one must choose what emphasis one want to put on the activity i.e. sports or martial art ( Specifically recreating the way the martial art was done in period as best as we can manage ).
One can do both alternatively but not do justice to both at the same time in the same bout or duel.
As to simultaneous or close to simultaneous kills it doesn't really matter if it is due to a technical mistake, a lack or training, a lack of fear or good sense: The results in a real fight is mutually unfortunate !
Now, if one is totally overmatches by an opponent and one doesn't have the option to avoid the fight, and one is going to lose anyway ! Well, then one has nothing to lose and taking the other guy in a suicidal disregard for defense makes sense and also is something any good swordsman has to be wary about as there is no more dangerous foe than one with no hope of surviving. ( So I think that in period mutual suicidal actions where a possibility but one that would be trained for so as to avoid it ..... the better swordsman being even more careful if is opponent is untrained or is way overmatched and desperate ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Sep, 2009 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bryce Felperin wrote: | | David Teague wrote: | I've been advocating doggie shock collars for some time now with an instructor's finger on the buttons during freeplay.
Fail to close the line, ZAP !
Double Kill, ZAP!
Only "Hand Snipe" without closing, ZAP!
Plunge in with the "Reset Button Mentality ", ZAP! ZAP! ZAP!
Muhahahahahahaha |
ROFL!!!! |
But...
I'm not joking.
I'd wear one too.
As long as the person with the zap box wasn't a jerk, it would be an effective training tool.
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Sep, 2009 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: |
Of interest are the few rules we know from Bolognese swordsmanship (i.e. when they were bouting). We know from Manciolino and The Anonymous that all hits were scored as one point except for the head, which was scored three and the foot which was scored two (in recognition of the skill required to hit it). However, after a hit, the swordsman was allowed to take one step to respond (presumably this meant an immediate step). While this also has drawbacks, I find that it also has interesting implications. For one, you can ignore hand snipers provided that when they attack the hand, you can step forward and deliver a strike to the head. Additionally, even if you hit first, it doesn't matter if you don't cover yourself on the way out.
Steve |
Thanks for sharing that! Those rules are great. Is there more info, and if so where might I find it?
I know I've seen a similar ruleset on Will's Commonplace blog, that I believe was 16th century English.
Cheers,
Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
Bryce Felperin
Location: San Jose, CA Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 552
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Sep, 2009 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Teague wrote: | | Bryce Felperin wrote: | | David Teague wrote: | I've been advocating doggie shock collars for some time now with an instructor's finger on the buttons during freeplay.
Fail to close the line, ZAP !
Double Kill, ZAP!
Only "Hand Snipe" without closing, ZAP!
Plunge in with the "Reset Button Mentality ", ZAP! ZAP! ZAP!
Muhahahahahahaha |
ROFL!!!! |
But...
I'm not joking.
I'd wear one too.
As long as the person with the zap box wasn't a jerk, it would be an effective training tool. |
Just imagining your picture with a doggie collar has me ROFL again!!!
Thanks for the laugh. Seriously though, there are merits in what you say based upon some of the fights I've been in. I know my sword instructor would just be crazy to take up this idea...hope he isn't seeing this thread. :-|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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