|
Post by rammstein on Feb 9, 2008 4:28:35 GMT
BW
Yes I probably could be nicer about it, however I feel that I have just as much to back up my claims as anyone else here. Here's the kicker - Adam, who has far more practical experience in WMA than anyone else in the conversation, is of similar mindset.
Oswyn, I see the SCA as poor movements characterzied by speed and power rather than any actual training. I.E whoerver hits harder and faster wins. I've seen numerous examples of this in the videos posted by tsafa as well as yourself and you've only helped back up my claim that the SCA is a mockery of european historical recreation.
So? Not knowing how to do soemthing is better than swearing you're doing something right when you're totally wrong. And since when did one need practical experience (which I DO have, by the way) to refute erroneous claims?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 5:06:51 GMT
That's the thing about comparison.. nothing is exactly alike, and therefore categorization will always fail in some way shape or form.
If one was to ultimately discern whether or not SCA is a WMA there has to be a definition for WMA that is universally accepted. In order to do that the qualifications have to be generic enough to allow for individual interpretation. The risk of this is that, obviously, the requirements will be so vague that a mutual combat against an opponent where both parties utilize the form of a frying pan would qualify for example. (not being completely serious btw).
What I'm getting at is that regardless of how many people agree with the inclusion of SCA under the category of being a WMA, there will always be those who do not. The more you try to authenticate this or that form of interpretation of historical combat through creating a checklist, the more that checklist will have to be adapted to compensate for a form that _some_ others believe fits the bill as well. The process would be unending, and therefore satisfaction on everyone's part is unattainable.
My personal opinion is that I do feel that SCA can be considered a form of WMA based (as mentioned previously by others) on the fact that there are those involved (a minority, perhaps) that seek to discover how combat truly was carried out during the period.
Sure some/most SCA combatants may not utilize the various illustrations offered through those fechtbucher that have been discovered (whereas AEMMA et al do the opposite) but that does not mean that there aren't SCAdians who do research on the fechtbucher in attempt to understand better.
The important thing is to avoid the stereotypes pressed upon the communities and realize that there are a number of ways to approach any problem or situation. There are a host of methods to learn how combat was during the period and therefore ignoring any potential opportunities of furthering one's knowledge in this regard (and all others, really) is an injustice not only to those of different method, but to yourself for not being open enough to accept and learn from them.
on a side note,
Assuming legitimacy soley through written example is somewhat pointless, in this situation, as we have, at best, estimates of the numbers who would have had access to the masters (in person) or the fechtbucher otherwise. I agree, there is merit in them (the fechtbucher); I am not dismissing their existence nor their use. However, I do believe that basing truth completely on what is found (the fechtbucher) has to be taken with a grain of salt. The only true possible way to know, with absolute certainty, of how people fought during the period is to watch them or participate first-hand when it happened. Any guesses we have now, including all those based on the fechtbucher cannot really be depended upon for utmost legitimacy. They may be close, even damn close, but we still have no way of knowing just how close.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 6:09:56 GMT
Bloodwraith, I take no offense in your opinions or thoughts. I can accept any opposing opinion that is given with sincerity and with reason. You have both.
I'll ask to consider something you might not have thought of. Using the SCA methods you have seen me use in various videos, if faced up against a person trained in WMA as shown in the fightbooks, do you think I would be able to defend myself? Would I pose a credible threat if I we were to substitute blunts and rattan for real swords? The question is not who would win, that is not the issue. Being defensible and posing a credible threat is the essence of a fighting system.
You might say that even a Zulu warrior with a sharp stick and a madu can pose a real threat and defend themselves. I would say absolutely. European explorers took them very seriously in their African martial art skills.
Oswyn, the second batch of vids you posted are kick$emprini. That is East Coast fighting all the way. Very straight forward and boxing like, no loopy stuff. What you guys see there is the Kingdom of Atlantia's Crown Tourney to determine a new king. They are the hardest hitting kingdom around. They don't take any medium shots. I plan on looking at those two videos over and over again for pointers
Mandorallin, you made many good points, particularly the part were WMA has not fully been defined. Who has the authority to define it anyway? A lot of people in fencing circles will argue that Epee is also a martial art. Any why not... it was used in dueling at one point to draw blood. The blood was small and symbolic but none the less, it was used to satisfy honer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 6:18:39 GMT
Perhaps I could clarify my thoughts a little better, but to convey what I was intending to in the most simple form would be to say that in the context of fighting systems Art=Skill. That is all. Therefore, any skill learned in the furtherance of interpersonal conflict is an Art.
Any endeavor undertaken in relation to conflict, belongs in Roman Mythology to Mars, ergo, it is Martial.
The safe handling and proficient use of the M-16 rifle by armed forces is a Martial Art.
The skilled use of a sword is a Martial Art.
The correct placement and construction of fixed defenses is a Martial Art.
And yes, the practice of Kung Fu, Silat, Hsing I, and others, is a Martial Art.
The term Martial Art is almost always misused, most often by the practitioners of those 'Martial Arts'. That's why I say 'fighting system'. I believe it is a more realistic, non-misleading term for any skilled method of conflict.
--- That being said, I probably bring a much different background to the discussion than many of the people likely to be reading this thread. Because of that, my views are sure to be different from somebody who has just received his turquoise polka-dotted belt in whatever flavor-of-the-month 'Martial Art' they have spent the last six months practicing, or more likely, something they have read a book or two on and are now more than willing to hold forth as 'Experts' in every other form of combat known to man. I have experienced real conflict, where the loser is usually injured or possibly dead, and the winner lives to fight another day. In that world, whatever skill you have, whatever grants you victory, is what you use. Real conflict is an ugly, brutal business, it is not Kata, it is not the mulinello from posta breve, it does not matter how many times you strike the pell 'with intent'. In a sword fight, you can dance around all you want or strike any pose you wish, but if I have the opportunity to use my brute strength to dig your eyeballs from their sockets with my bare hands, you're gonna be one sightless, pitiful shell of a man.
I am not condemning the study of any structured fighting system, they can be wonderful things, for many reasons. At the same time, I have no illusions that those systems are the end-all be-all of combat, because more often that not, those very same fighting systems will fail you if you are not in a refereed bout with another practitioner of the same system.
That is the reason that I believe what the SCA does has some potential for anyone truly wishing to learn about fighting. They bring something unique to the fight, just as systems based on Liberi, Fairbourne, tai chi chuan, boxing, wresting, or indeed myriad others. To dismiss that out of hand, is to show your ignorance and/or limit your potential for all time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 6:43:57 GMT
I think you would be able to defend yourself and then some, however I am not sure how good you would be with an actual sword as I don't think I have seen you use an actual sword. I know that the difference between the handling of rattan and the handling of a real sword are completely different. With a real sword, people tend to be more tentative in their strikes and in their usage of the sword. Put up some video of you using a real sword and we might get a better indication of your abilities with a real sword. I wouldn't want to try and face you on your own terms that is sure, I would face you sword to shield you would slaughter me, however if I were armed with a polearm I would imagine that we would be equal in our abilities to offer a creditable threat. As to the zulus, if you have ever seen their version of practice you will know it is more hardcore than anything the west would even approach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 7:05:05 GMT
Bloodwraith, I think you have seen me use a steel rapier, but that is all point work. I don't think it is what you want. On a few occasions I have asked SCA guys if they want to go easy with blunts. I don't have a person readily available to shoot some video. The best I could do for now is put up a vid illustrating the methods with a blunt on a pell if you think that is worthwhile. I am thinking of using a blunt in one hand and a rattan-sword in the other, and going through some of the basic strikes with speed and power.
Too bad you don't live near NYC. I think if you felt my rattan-sword on one hand and my Hanwai blunt in the other you would be very surprised at how similar they are. This is not to say all rattan-swords are similar. They are what you make them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 10:38:46 GMT
Oswyn, I see the SCA as poor movements characterzied by speed and power rather than any actual training. I.E whoerver hits harder and faster wins. I've seen numerous examples of this in the videos posted by tsafa as well as yourself and you've only helped back up my claim that the SCA is a mockery of european historical recreation. There are 3 aspects in a fight that can be controled. Might, speed and tactics. If you out class your opponent in all three...guess what you win(barring luck...which is the another factored...but something that you can not control so we will leave that out for now). You can work to be stronger, faster or fight smarter. If your better at 2 of the 3...guess what, your chance of winning is pretty high. So humm faster and stonger = the win...hey guess what else also happend in just about any REAL fight. The faster stronger guy usually wins. Since your a JSA guy i'll put it in terms even you can understand. It's all good and well to train with katas to develop muscle memory and tone muscles needed for the various moves but go and try a REAL fight and see how useful a kata is. It's not. And I don't mean a sparring match, I mean somebody means to pummel your face into the cement fight. I have taken several martial arts and I have been in knife fights, gun fights and fist fights (yes I have been shot and stabbed before...yes it hurts...I don't recommend it). Care to guess exactly how many kata I used in those fights...ever? Yep ZERO. You know what I DID do to survive those? I was smarter, strong and faster then my opponent. Fancy moves mean nothing if you can't deliver then hard enough, fast enough and at the right time when you need it. That is something SCA combat is good for. Read your manual, do your katas...then see what happens when the other guy isn't co-operating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 11:56:06 GMT
Tsafa: I would very much like to see your work on the pell with both rattan and real, the things I would be looking at are edge alignment and elements that are not readily apparent with a rattan sword. I think it would be very worthwhile to see your pell work with a real sword. I live nowhere near NYC I wish I lived close to someone who had the facilities to be able to do sparring, even if it was with rattan. Unfortunately due to circumstances beyond my control I have had to quit doing my re-enactment until things right themselves, and I will miss it. Tsafa, you know that I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and what you put up on here for us less experienced guys to learn from and for your combat prowess. I always enjoy watching your videos as they give me very good ideas for my own training and things. I very much want to set up my own pell because I think that it teaches you how to strike properly even if the target is stationary. I also think that a pell would be very good with regards to my JSA training as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 15:31:16 GMT
Thanks for the nice words Bloodwraith. I have a WMA practice this morning with NYHFA. I should be able to put a video together by this evening.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 9, 2008 15:39:44 GMT
By the way tsafa, I know I'm being rather blunt, but I'm not in the mood to dress up my words with niceities. That said, I highly respect you and you're commitment to WMA (which I still don't consider SCA to be remotely part of ). No I'm not a JSA guy (I was joking about foresaking my western passion).... ...But obviously, neither are you. You're comments sum up as "The MASTERS of weapons fighting in the days where they were actually used are stupid pansies and they'd be defeated any day of the week" Tsafa, I don't know if you'll take offense to this, but I highly question your experience with swords considering you refuse to spend a penny of $300 in what is a fundamentally flawed market. There are exceptions to this rule, but I'm not sure you've got the experience to judge sword handling when you've only handled gen2s and windlasses. However, I have handled rattans before and they're not close enough to be compared to sword sin handling, but then again they aren't too far off the mark either. Talk to the respected Mr. Edelson with your attitude towards WMA and the SCA and you'll be in hot water over there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 15:56:40 GMT
Talk to the respected Mr. Edelson with your attitude towards WMA and the SCA and you'll be in hot water over there. I don't mix one with the other. I don't bring other fighting concepts into peoples classes. I study each system in isolation. In tournament, I use whatever I need to use to win. Generally, that means using whatever system people are least familiar with. I have fought longsword contests with RSW's. I find that my rapier experience is very effective at quick kills. Likewise, I have found my longsword training very effective in the SCA in Greatsword fighting. However, that only goes so far because most people who fight greatsword also do WMA.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 9, 2008 15:59:45 GMT
Well from what I've seen of SCA greatsword (which isn't much) the fighting they do is the clumsiest and most unwiedly I've laid eyes on.
Seriously though, talk to Mr. Edelson with a respectful attitude about it. He's well more experienced than any of us and should give you some good conversation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 16:22:05 GMT
Bloodwraith, my rattan sword has almost the exact same balance point, and blade length sa the Hanwei H&H. One of my buddies picked one up for Cut and Thrust. I decided to take it against a pell...bad idea. I almost ended up owing him a new sword. Edge Alignment, etc were all correct. The difference was that I was taking the sword, and making the pell rock just as hard as I would with rattan. I am certainly very sorry that you have gotten such a stilted view of the SCA. Lochac (Australia) tends to do things a bit different than the rest of us, for better or worse.
Rammstein, what you see as raw speed and power is actually years of training. The same way you see two people free-sparring in a WMA environment, and recognizing those little cues that said the counter was "just" off, or this is "barely" open, is the same as in the SCA. The difference is that with that speed and power, there is even less room for conscious thought and error. Things are happening almost instinctually, to the point where you go out there, see the opening, and you are already swinging. The power and speed aspect are simply narrowing the success rate. Aka. at that speed, and that power, you better be damn near perfect. This is one of those times where "you" (generically) are unable to see the art because of missing those visual cues. All you see is two guys swinging, and one fall down, yet don't recognize WHY the person lost (what his error was).
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 9, 2008 16:42:20 GMT
It may be years of training, but it's years of training wrong. That leads to bad habits.
Unfortunately we'll never be able to prove the SCA wrong as WMA is undoubtedly a dead art that's being slowly but surely revived. The difference between the two is the WMA uses what we KNOW works whereas the SCA creates it's own rules and uses what works in that seculded environment.
perfect example: The fleche in fencing. Sure, olympic fencing may have evolved from the earlier rapier and smallsword, but because of the strict rules and lack of understanding as to the arts that they are participating in, the fleche is an avid attack where in a real duel it's suicide.
(I don't deny the skill....but basket weaving also takes skill and SCAers are closer to the llatter than WMA)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 16:59:40 GMT
It may be years of training, but it's years of training wrong. That leads to bad habits. Unfortunately we'll never be able to prove the SCA wrong as WMA is undoubtedly a dead art that's being slowly but surely revived. The difference between the two is the WMA uses what we KNOW works whereas the SCA creates it's own rules and uses what works in that secluded environment. perfect example: The fleche in fencing. Sure, olympic fencing may have evolved from the earlier rapier and smallsword, but because of the strict rules and lack of understanding as to the arts that they are participating in, the fleche is an avid attack where in a real duel it's suicide. (I don't deny the skill....but basket weaving also takes skill and SCAers are closer to the llatter than WMA) And it is this kind of backhanded comments that make my impression of you go down. There have been several people on here, who have put up legitimate concerns to why they feel that SCA is not a WMA. None of them have felt the need to start name-calling. Are you that immature and un-confident in your position that you must resort to taunting us? The problem with your statement of WMA using what WORKS, and the SCA experimenting, is that WMA is still going through a major experimental phase. How often had people understood the concept of stringeri (sp?) before 5-6 years ago? It was experimentation, within those "rules" which led to understanding. Part of my initial point was that we DON'T KNOW what worked back then. The one video you have posted is applying techniques which were written down over 500 years past when they are trying to apply them. Armour changed, evolved, and was able to present new situations, which would not have been likely before. Wrong practices how? What "bad practices" are you seeing? The not having to watch out for protecting the hand? The un-guarding of the lower leg? Please be specific. It is incredibly hard to hit someone's arm while they are in mid-swing, much less their hand. I know of a few old-timer SCA guys who have to travel in the back-country of the southern US. They swear on a 2" piece of rattan, without duct-tape. The reason why we have duct tape is because skin-on rattan will flay your skin right off the bones. Guys have stopped quite a few drunk barfights with these. There is also a story of the first female Knight in the SCA getting stopped by a mugger, and successfully defending herself, using SCA techniques. A soldier in Iraq, when fallen into an ambush, used the strategies and practices of SCA melee to visualize where they needed to move to for a better advantage, and save their men. What you see as bad habits, and wrong-ness, are simply safety rules put in place. They are trying to replicate As SAFELY AS POSSIBLE the situations that I referred to in the initial post. Do they lead to a slightly stilted view? Yes, but so does any other safety pattern. For a real fight, I would be bashing you with my shield, kicking (which the SCA allowed for a certain time, and then moved away from), and otherwise fighting dirty. In a real fight, are you convinced that a WMA practioner would have enough control to override his bodies muscle memory, and not pull the blow? Each system has its flaws, and interrogating one while simultaneously ignoring others is essentially egotism. Yes, my system has flaws, but YOURS ARE BIGGER ONES! Yet all you seem to do is pull from what the bottom of the SCA can offer, and hold that up as the wrong way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 9, 2008 17:44:06 GMT
hmm....
Namecalling? I could start if you wish, but unfortunately I don't feel I should rise to your challenge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 17:47:51 GMT
Look - your sword will either be capable of cutting your opponent or it won't be. That much is simple fact. Even well made mail armor with two inches of good padding is virtually 100% impervious to cuts - including ones of 'great force'. reference. Big dent, but the mail is holding. And that's vs. a stationary john clements style cut. That's a really really hard hit, and all it did was dent the mat. With a couple inches of padding, that hit would be relegated to a mere somewhat bruising affair. So obviously, the SCA is training in a futile and ridiculous setting - trying to use sword edges to damage someone underneath armor is silly.
|
|
|
Post by septofclansinclair on Feb 9, 2008 17:51:16 GMT
There's no problem with disagreeing heatedly - in fact, I think it's great. But when things tart getting personal we just need to take a few deep breaths and then get back on topic. I can't comment about SCA vs WMA - I'm not qualified, honestly. But I would say that comparing either one to basket-weaving is perhaps more insulting than it was intended to be, and on the other side of it assuming or implying immaturity and lack of confidence is unnecessary as well. Let's play nice, ya?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 18:13:31 GMT
Rammstein, the reason we think we can "do better than the masters" is that we dont know of any masters from the era, who left anything. Again, if you can point me to one manual regarding fighting in armoured combat before Transitional armour, that would have realistically expected to go against maille clad opponents, then I would agree. Otherwise you are simply taking what one master says, and applying it to something which they had no experience.
Adam, have you seen any iconographic evidence from the time? I would encourage you to look at things like the Manesse Codex, the Maciejowski Bible, etc. Reference the number of times that people are using swords, against opponents in armour, vs. clubs/maces/etc. Even though their is very little cutting aspect to the fighting, there is still much damage to be done. If you can show me that using a mace or other blunt instrument was socially acceptable for noblemen to be using during this time, please do. That is a degree that some people seem to be ignorant of. Just because a weapon was effective, doesn't mean that it was acceptable for certain classes to use them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 18:37:55 GMT
So obviously, the SCA is training in a futile and ridiculous setting - trying to use sword edges to damage someone underneath armor is silly. My thoughts exactly. None of us has killed a man with a sword, and none of us will. It's like a bunch of virgins fantasizing about sex, and the different virgins arguing about which of their fantasies is more accurate.
|
|