Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 18:44:47 GMT
...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" Umm okay...where are you getting THAT from?!? I'm sorry but my gook su won sensei has also been a lot of life and death fights as well and you think he used any katas in them as well? The answer BTW is NO. The videos you have shown of what the WMA guys are doing is basically katas. Now katas are generally ordered and set up so that one move CAN flow into the next...but that doesn't mean it MUST in a REAL fight. If somebody takes a step back instead of blocking as the kata assumes, then doing a follow up attack without pressing forward is just DUMB. Katas are for TRAINING...but you SPAR to get ready for real fights. I know a lot of martial artist that can do perfect beautiful katas...and when they spar, they are useless. In a real fight, they are dead. Martial arts is for FIGHTING after all. If you can't use it in a REAL fight, it's useless (even if the chance of you in a real sword fight is slim...only happened to me once...kinda...using ninja-to style short sword SLO...yes I had an interesting time growing up). If you notice, martial arts in general has two main parts. The first is training...making sure your blow are correct. That you have the muscle memory. The second is sparing. Now ALL sparring has limits to ensure safety...but they are never at anything below full tilt. This I think is the value of SCA combat. You can practice at other WMA to get the training and then go to the SCA and spar (and that is what a lot of the fighter here do...and it's a lot of fun...especially when a WMA longsword user comes along and replies but you can't move there...it ruins my follow up attack...to which our reply...umm yes that is EXACTLY why we started moving there). Oh and as far as SCA period of fighting is concerned...please show me a master of it. What I saw in that viking video was 2 guys applying high medieval sword style to VIKING fighting...cause yeah THAT is experimenting and making thing up as we go along...oh no, that just fine and dandy . BW...sorry to hear your from austrilia...that explains SOOO much. At a west-antir war a few years back, we had a contingent from there and umm yeah...what a bunch of cowboys(and they were so bad that we couldn't even use them as skirmishers...which is what we do with OUR cowboys). I'm sure there are some good fighters over there if you look hard enough though .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2008 18:47:48 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. Umm speak for yourself...okay maybe not kill...but does maim count? Yes yes intersting teenage hood .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 0:42:52 GMT
Can someone shed some more light on the Lichtenaur Dueling Shields stuff? Specifically, what the shields are made of, the goal of the combatant (touch-kill, first hit, death, etc.), what they should be wearing (colth, maille, plate), etc. All of this seems to be taking something completely out of context, but would like some more info before I jump to conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 10, 2008 1:29:44 GMT
You maimed someone in sex?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 2:33:41 GMT
You maimed someone in sex? No but Iwas in a sword fight...sorta...see the previous post... Although do you consider getting a 4 inch scar from falling out of a tree during sex maiming? In which case I could be guilty of that as well.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 10, 2008 2:42:12 GMT
You need an olmypic medal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 4:09:46 GMT
A few months ago I got to fight with someone from Australia. I thought he was very competent. I watched him fight other people as well. Australia must have some very good practices. I am sure it is like the US, where the practices tend to be better around major cities and lacking in less populated areas.
Oswyn, good question about the dueling shields. There is very little information on that. I can't imagine how that would have worked in any graceful manor.
A minor point that came up today in my WMA practice is how do you thrust from Ochs or Pfug. I suggested that we should be twisting the blade so we end up in proper Longenort. Others thought that the the blade should not twist because doing so is inefficient. Point is that the manuals are not clear. In many instances in WMA proper we have to fill in the blanks on our own. The instructor determined that either way is acceptable, for now, as long as the blade moves first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 4:53:50 GMT
Tsafa: We have three incredibly good fighters that if you kitted them out in SCA gear and taught them the SCA rules they would beat the pants off of anyone because of how good there understanding is and their ability, not to mention one of them is seven feet tall. The true afficianados of sword fighting are not found in the SCA which is where all the complete f**ktards end up and we leave them in their happy little idiocy and go and the serious people fight in re-enactment groups with steel and safety. It is like the USA and anywhere else really, major cities have more people and so have a tendency to have some exceptional people, but there are a lot more f**ktards as well. I am from Adelaide also which is Australia's biggest country town. The guy you fought I would be guessing is from Melbourne or ACT or one of the more populous cities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 5:36:27 GMT
I'm willing to bet that even if noble was using a sword and nothing else in a fight against a fully armored opponent - then he'd use more than just the edge of his blade. How many people in the SCA are portraying nobles? everyone? how realistic of you. As for duels vs. open combat... Barring a few youtube videos of huge get togethers, virtually all SCA combat I've seen, including those of mr. Tsafa have been 1 on 1 fights. Therefore, your arguments regarding keeping up defense while dealing with that guy are void. Liechtenauer himself said, in the very opening line of his verse, to use his art in Wars. WMA as I study it is applicable in different settings, and different tactics are used in those settings, but the art as a whole, remains the same. Of course I'm not going to Zwerchau a man in full armor. But I will do other things that I've trained in. The manuals are nice because they 1: show techniques for a variety of weapons, and 2: Show techniques against both armored and unarmored opponents. Has the SCA ever practiced unarmored/lightly armored combat? I've seen the Maciejowski Bible. Most of the men depicted have little in the way of armor compared to SCA guys. Very open helmets, no protection of any sort in the lower opening, a mail shirt at most covering the upper opening(yay for exposed hands). And the Manesse Codex was a compilation of depictions of Poets. Those of high status in armor were depicted in Tournament style duels, and so the sword in that instance would have been a weapon of status more than effectiveness, agreed upon by those participating, and I'm sure, as also depicted in other manuals(talhoffer comes to mind specifically) that in those tournament duels that they would have used the half sword, and also grappling to great effect, rather than merely the cuts. And while I need to dredge up some sources - I'm sure that going onto a battlefield, a noble(i.e. A knight) would be initially mounted with a lance or spear. If he was a dismounted knight, Spear, Pollaxe, Halberd, Lucerne Hammer, Mace, etc. would most definitely have been preferable as primary weapons than the sword, which, undoubtedly was also carried nonetheless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 5:40:44 GMT
Coldnapalm: I disagree completely, but that's a completely different argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 6:31:22 GMT
The manuals are nice because they 1: show techniques for a variety of weapons, and 2: Show techniques against both armored and unarmored opponents. Has the SCA ever practiced unarmored/lightly armored combat? The manuals are nice indeed and we are lucky to have them. However, in reality there have always been varying degrees of armor. Most people would have worn layers of linen or leather. Blunt strikes would work very well against such instances. You might say why not use a crowbar? A crowbar or some farming tool would work, but a sword is faster and its edge delivers a much more effective percussive blow even when no cut is made. I have fought with SCA legal axes and also experimented with real axes. While the initial blow with an axe may be more powerful then with a sword, follow up blows with the sword are usually more powerful then with the axe. The axe tends to require a greater windup which gives more of a tell. The simple fact is that velocity outpaces mass. I have stated numerous times that the era of full plate was very short lived. The manual are specificaly 15th century and perhaps as early as 14th. People did fight battles before those periods. Personally I do believed that 15 th century methods are based on earlier methods used in fighting with other two-handed weapons but that can not be proven or disproved and I can not say to what extent things changed over time. Layers of linen, leather and mail have been used for a much longer period of time the full-plate and percussive blows are effective even when you can not cut all the way through. We all know that SCA helmets are made to a standard of what would have been at the upper limits of historical helms in terms of thickness and overall protection. They protect fairly well against a single blow to the head. However, on occasion when my opponent did not hear me call a shot good, I have received two consecutive blows to the head. It is a whole other story when you do get two blows back to back. Things start to look fuzzy and you get lightheaded. I imagine 5 consecutive hard blows would be enough to lay me cold. People have gotten concussions through their SCA helmets. Part of the protection of an SCA helmet comes from its mass of 7 to 9 lbs. In addition it has half an inch padding. How much did Norman helmets weigh? 3 lbs? I do believe that is light enough so that a man can be knocked out with a sword strike to the helmet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 8:40:39 GMT
I disagree, but if you're using a heavy axe in a duel like a sword then it's probably sluggish enough that it's power cannot be brought to bear, so I understand what you're saying.
Let me try a different approach:
You're right - a sword *can* deliver a good impacting blow. However - I believe that using a real sword the way SCA uses them would very quickly damage and destroy the blade.
Also - while a sword *can* deliver a blow strong enough to really injure through moderate to heavy armor, why would one use the sword that way when in a battle situation there would quite naturally be other weapons available to the sword owner? Particularly a man with a sword and all that expensive armor. Why damage the sword when another weapon(a flanged mace or warhammer for instance) would do better against armor and be more resistant to damage than the sword?
Also - please address the issue of no grappling. If you've got a shield I can understand that reluctance, however there are spearmen and men using longsword/greatswords that could easily free up a hand for grappling - but this is never practiced. There are plenty of martial organizations that are able to grapple safely, why can not the SCA?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 9:01:13 GMT
Sorry, Adam, but from an engineering standpoint, CG precisely defines distribution of mass e.g. balance, although CP (and COP in a sword) is an entirely different matter, perhaps you meant to say something else? No, CG precisely DOESN'T define distribution of mass. All it defines is the center of that mass, not how it is distributed. Case in point:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 10:04:17 GMT
The simple fact is that velocity outpaces mass. You're right - a sword *can* deliver a good impacting blow. However - I believe that using a real sword the way SCA uses them would very quickly damage and destroy the blade. Yes, I agree that a sword will wear faster then axes or maces. I also agree that percussive use will wear it faster then slices or thrusts. It is part of the cost of war. Maces and axes are slower in both initiating a strike and following up with a strike. However, there is the matter of personal preference. Maces and axes were used for the very reason you said. Flails are awesome weapons too for the same reason and offer additional advantages of bending around shields. The drawback is that they must stay in motion and can be hard to control. That is all a matter of which weapon you train with and fine tunning your skills to that weapon. It is also a matter of what you can afford. Sword are more expensive in their initial purchase and in their frequent replacement cost. Another thing to consider is that in the 11 th century suits of mail did not have gaps in the armpits, arms and behind the legs as did later plate-armor. Pointy swords had not been fully developed yet to break apart the links in the mail. So what options does that leave us with if not percussive strikes to break the man under the mail. Under current rules, polearms and greatswords are allowed some grappling. These rules may vary from kingdom to kingdom. They are allowed to grab my shield and create openings. They are also allowed to grab weapons on the non-blade part such as a reccaso on a greatsword or the handle on a glaive. I believe there is a 3 second rule where they can't pull for more then three seconds. If you can't get a good hit within 3 seconds of grabbing a shield or weapon, then you have no obvious advantage. If it was allowed to go on beyond 3 seconds then it would be a contest of strength rather then skill with weapons. From what I have observed people who fight with Great Swords and Polearms choose not to take their hand off their weapon to grapple. It is very hard to generate enough force with large weapons with just one hand. It leads to a situation, where yeah, you just pushed my shield aside, but I just thrusted in you face before you could do anything with the opening you created. There are methods people use to open up a shield while maintaining two-hands on their weapon. A polearm can be a giant lever if used with two-hands in the right way. There is also the matter that we have women competing on equal terms in the SCA. To allow all out grappling would deny women (and small men) any chance to use their weapon skills to win. Realistically, it would become an all out grappling contest. Within a short period of time everyone would attain a similar level of skill in grappling. Then its just a mater of the strongest person winning. I do grappling my WMA class. No one is strong enough to take me down grappling unless I make a mistake first. We all have the same basic grappling knowledge. In cases where people are better in grappling, I have enough experience to see something coming and I am able to resist. On a few occasions that I was taken down is because I did something stupid like put my feet together. That does not happen often. In the situation where people use their sword only against me, my strength advantage plays little role.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 10:37:55 GMT
Why not a contest of skill in grappling?
I am forced to question the sophistication of grappling technique that you describe, wherein even a modestly trained person can out-grapple a very skilled one of smaller stature. What grappling background are you describing? Any at all that teach grappling with weapons in hand or even while standing? or is it merely groundwork? Have you read Ringeck's wrestling plays? They're remarkably effective regardless of size - for example digging the fingers into the eyes and the thumbs underneath the jaw simultaneously.
What you have described is a sacrifice of authenticity in favor of 'making things fair'. I don't agree with a decision to develop a martial art with that attitude; nor do I agree with your opinions on the skill necessary to grapple a larger man successfully.
Within the realm of grappling - particularly standing grappling, there are techniques that are very suited for small men against larger men, and there are others suited for larger men against smaller men.
Yes there is an inherent advantage to people that are bigger and stronger. However, as skill goes up(with both combatants, not just one) that advantage shrinks. I imagine that two men who are master grapplers would have a fair chance against one another regardless of size parity as they'd each be playing their own inherent advantages against their opponent's disadvantages.
If skill is rated on a 1-10 basis, and your odds of winning were a ratio that combined your 'skill' and your 'size advantage', then at a skill of 1 a man much larger than another would have a much greater chance of winning as the ratio would be very high in his favor say: 2:1 or even 3:1. As the skill goes up the difference that strength or size makes goes down 5:4 is much better odds than 2:1. 8:7 is even better still. 10:9 is almost even. When you also take into account that being small has its own advantages, suddenly you learn that being large isn't as much a boon as most people think.
(please forgive my clumsy attempt to quantitatively represent such abstract, dynamic, and very specific concepts with a vague number system - I'm merely trying to illustrate a point)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 11:00:18 GMT
Yes I am well versed in the standing grapplings. I believe there are three plays. We have even done some others that include dagger and at the sword.
Consider the standing grapplings. Going in memory, but we start off standing with one arm on shoulder and the other on hip. You make and attempt to grab my leg behind the knee while pushing me back at the shoulder. The second play is the guy steps back to void and you go for the other leg. That works fine in drills, but realistically, you can't just do that to me. Its been tried and experimented. If I'm sober and know that you are trying to take me down, it won't happen.
Consider the dagger locks. I do think he dagger wrestlings give the person with initiative a better advantage then the standing wrestlings. If you get me into a joint lock, granted you can break my joint. I can't stop that. But getting me into that joint lock is not so simple. I'm not going to let you pull my elbow over your shoulder or twist it behind my back or get my wrist into a scissor lock. You have to consider that the other person has some level of skill too. The chances are that one of us would stab the other with the blade first then gain a lock.
Grappling properly is about gaining leverage. A smaller person can out-leverage a bigger person. The assumption there is that the other person has no idea how to counter-act the grapple attempt. That is not likely.
I believe some things are better learned in isolation. You need cut off points. In my WMA class the longsword instructor is different then the wrestling and dagger instructor. There is a division between the two. They each have their specialty. It makes learning easier too. A person should attempt to learn all skills. It is not wise to depend just on grappling or just on blade work. People tend to learn better if you break stuff up into smaller chucks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 11:15:11 GMT
Bloodwraith, here is that video I promised you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 11:48:13 GMT
Hey Bill, You have a lot of brute force which makes you a worthy adversary against someone who fights the same system as you. You look good in your technique but you don't have the finesse that makes a real sword such a lethal weapon. You are throwing hard telling blows but like I said the finesse is very important. Against a quarter staff or a pole arm I think you are a less creditable threat due to the fact that SCA teaches you to overpower your shots. Against a quarter staff or a polearm you need that finesse that allows you to get in around. Problem with the SCA training is the fact that they don't take into account the true finesse that is required. Against a chinese martial artist or a japanese martial artist I imagine you might have a bit of difficulty, because you are wanting to throw hard telling shots and the other martial artist will be moving around forcing you to play their game. It was a very good demonstration, thankyou, it allowed me to better analyze your abilities with a sword and how you might fair against certain weapons and enemies. In a real fight against a chinese or japanese martial artist you also have to take into account that they can throw kicks and punches that hit as hard as your rattan sword and knee strikes that hit with two or three times the power of a rattan sword. The rattan sword still looks unwieldy and unrealistic to me but I can see why it is a good training weapon. The other problem with SCA fighting is footwork, you guys don't use it so much, it seems to be pummeling the other guy into submission. A smaller person who is more delicate would get thoroughly overpowered in your fights just because they can't throw or take hits as hard as that. That is another reason that I would never be in the SCA, I could never take the hits and I am more inclined to combine elements of my chinese, japanese and other training into my fights. I can't compete in sheer strength but I don't fight against sheer strength, I go around it or through it and use my natural speed to my advantage. I know that using a rattan shinai I can throw three or four blows into the mix from varying angles and retreat out of range before you can land one of your power blows. The other problem with using such a huge amount of strength is that you wear down a lot more rapidly. You should try adding some of your rapier training to what you do in SCA and using your feet more. The problem as I said though is that the SCA don't allow for those finesse hits, anything that doesn't hit hard enough to bruise seems discounted. Just my opinion, happy B'day by the way Bill
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2008 16:24:50 GMT
Really? I would be highly suprised if you were able to. I think you are comparing what you know in Australia, which is a very limited sense, vs. the entirety of the SCA. I have seen people who can throw hard and fast. In fact, doing one without the other is counter to our nature, as the speed develops the power. I think you would find the speed is as high as other things you have experienced, for the people who are willing to train. People do not wear down that quickly, to the point where we can be in "melee" scenarios for over an hour without too much fatigue. What wears us out is not our arms, but our armour, and the heat build-up.
Adam,
The reason why the Youtube videos focus primarily on 1 on 1 encounters is it is hard to keep track of what is going on from one primary viewpoint. There are a few helm-cams out there, but the rough quality isn't really worth it. Just because there are not videos, doesn't mean that our points are not valid.
Did you completely ignore the first post I made, besides reading the title? If so, I would encourage you to go back and read the part about "Assumed Armour Standard". This means that whatever you are wearing, you must accept blows to this common standard. What is the standard? Exactly what is in the Maciejowski Bible. For your list of what the nobleman would carry, I would disagree with you, as it seems we are referring to vastly different timeperiods. To clarify, I am referring to 1050-1200. What are you talking about? I agree that there are several instances of SCA people in armour later than that. It is their choice. However, they must mentally correct for the more protective nature, and act as though they had on a hauberk. Hence why we are talking about the timeperiod we do.
Again, please show me any instances you can find of warhammers/axes/maces during this time. Please also try and look at their relative popularity to the sword.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 10, 2008 16:34:57 GMT
Wow, that's a nice assumption(edit: not meant as sarcasm). Unfortunately, it doesn't hold much water. The sword at the time of the maciejowski bible may have been popular but certainly wasn't the most common weapon.
I wasn't aware the everyone was portraying nobles - that's another strike against them.
Tsafa, from the looks of those videos, you're striking with the flat of the sword in when using rattan.
|
|