harness designed for safty

[Patch]

SCA guidelines are probably relevant for W.M.A. stuff, with the addition of fencing mesh on the visor to cover the gaps and of course lower leg protection, they have a hell of a lot of experience in this kind of fighting and have built up to the point where they often look stunning and are clad as authentically as you could like.

Then again if you really if you throw around steel at full strength, it surely seems like nothing will adequately protect you. There are several videos of some guys doing this kind of fighting on youtube, it is a wonder to see, savagery, danger, excitement. And just an awesome intensity. I actually think they are worth watching just to grasp the feeling of brutal reality they portrey, we can learn from this kind of fighting. Of course there is not one of these videos that does not show at least one combatant getting injured, and these are the videos that they put up to promote their sport, the best of them. Also their technique kinda... leaves some skill to be desired.
If you want to see;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjwZO9gd_Ow
Look for the fellow with the knee injury (he'll miss those when they're gone) or that the guy without proper face protection is missing teeth.
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McoL6PZw_MM
You have to wait out the bits of Russian talking but there is good stuff there.
As you watch try to count the closed head injuries. If you are hit so hard in the head that you cant walk straight afterwords you are talking palpable and permanent injury. Ever seen those old boxers who can't talk properly and shake all the time from the brain damage?
Also no one can figure out what rules they play by, it seems to be "fight till it hurts too much to continue".
Anyway I think they nicely illustrate the point that if you are in the "go as hard as you can" crowd you are going to see a lot of injuries no matter how spiffy your kit.

[Patch]

The minimal safety requirements for NAAMA combat are well worked out and field tested for decades, I do not think you will convince anyone much to go to a system that is uncomfortable, encumbering and hot for no reason, especially if it looks bad. Those people who do not want to get bruised, or who want to look shiny, pull on more protection voluntarily. Those who don't, often get small bruises and bumps. You should never get a situation where people are getting disfiguring face injuries, and in fact for years and years it has been totally fine.

[Colin]

[knight of magdalene]

You know I agree with both of you on the point that it is not about hitting hard...authenticaly thats the last thing you'd want...getting stuck in bones... bang your dead. As the years of training roll on I have discovered that it more about dancing than about berserker wacking...thats a learning curve. Its the off step that wins mostly.

From my training in the last few years with the man who holds the book passed down from military cheif master instructor to military cheif master instructor master of european martial arts, the man who trains the special forces in hand to hand, I have learnt this.

Personally i think nothing of spending on safty kit...but for the low incomed... there are ways of making safty gear at home from bits and peices... for example a peice of padded leather with a rivited or tied metal plate and strapping could be made for under $5.00 and provide high neck safty.

Four or five plastic chopping boards from second hand shops would put you back $20.00 and could easily be heated, molded then sewn into a gammbason for kidney and spine protection... Invisable to anyone but providing good safty...scateboard pads under robes or gambason would also provide protection but be invisable as would boxing boxes etc...

But thats all from the top of my head.. I am sure the owners of the diferent franchises can work out something ...but will you?

there are enough products out there that can be invisably included into the harness...

All this is moot though... Unless the owners of NAAMA and WMA etc take charge show some leadership (as nobody else can...so its all talk from us see?) get togeather and make the changes which put inplace a higher level of safty harness to cover the movement towards the heavy hitting ( herby known as in the past as the style of the berserker.)

[Patch]

“SCA guidelines are probably relevant for W.M.A. stuff, with the addition of fencing mesh on the visor to cover the gaps and of course lower leg protection, they have a hell of a lot of experience in this kind of fighting and have built up to the point where they often look stunning and are clad as authentically as you could like.”

Oh sorry Colin, it was 3 am or something when I wrote this and I did not really read it through properly before I clicked “post”, I don’t quite know where W.M.A. came from in that sentence. I was really talking about max level protection and heavy hitting with blunt steel, not any one style in particular. My apologies.

[knight of magdalene]

well then let NAAMA put in place an SCA level of protection... what is the resistance... who cares if a participant wont enter a NAAMA ( inter club) feild without it...after all whats it to them?

Let the safty equipment standard be increased... lets see NAAMA and the other franchise owners get togeather and be autocratic on this one please...

[quentin]

Patch,
The point I would make is that many of us (I opin) are interested in the historical accuracy of our combat kit rather than nessesarily looking purely at protection. Historically armour follows changes in a) Technology to make it, b) concentration of wealth, c) Combative syles d) Social structures.

Please leave some room at events for a middle class Anglo Saxon like me !
I go to war mostly because the other guys have stolen one too many of my sheep, & I'll starve if I lose any more !

Which is not to suggest that those serious about WMA, (or the full plate periods...) shouldn't get to play - just that there needs to be both.
My own suggestion is two classes (light & heavy for want of better definitions). New fighters & the lightly armoured play in one group with "light" rules. Anyone who wants to (perhaps a min helmut spec, though) can play "heavy" with "heavy" rules.
We have enough people at the larger events & one in the morning & one in the avo would let people do both if they wished to.

Q

P.S. The above sounds like I am focused on armour. I'm not especially. A bad fighter is a dangerous fighter anywhere. I'm actually thinking more about the different styles/mentalities involved & letting each (broad) group have a little more room to do things the way they prefer. Perhaps espesially at Naama type events....club level is more cohesive.

[Patch]

“Patch, The point I would make is that many of us are interested in the historical accuracy of our combat kit rather than nessesarily looking purely at protection. Please leave some room for a middle class Anglo Saxon like me !“

Oh I totally agree, my post was about “hypothetically” what you would need to wear to be safe and fight as heavy as you want with steel swords, axes, maces et all.
In the end I said you basically can’t.
I still concluded that the best you can do is fight heavier, full power blows are still going to injure you through your armour.

”Which is not to suggest that those serious about WMA, (or the full plate periods...) shouldnt get to play - just that there needs to be both. My own suggestion is two classes (light & heavy for want of better definitions).”

This is what has been happening at NAAMA camps and other re-enactment get-togethers for the last couple of years, so no problems there friend.

[quentin]

two classes (light & heavy for want of better definitions).

Kath has also just pointed out that Naama defalts (poorly) to my 'light'
and Armoured Group to more of a 'heavy'.
Sorry, My Bad.
Mostly I guess the distinctions have not always been clear to me at any given event... we seem, to me, to have a choatic mixture of everything at each event.


Patch, one Could do full weopon blows with sharps! Armour however could not be period looking (more like Michelin Man, massively over padded), would require Lots of orthopedic support, weird materials & weirder economics to pay for it all.
It might also be quite difficult to move about in the armour& bracing required.... !
Easier to admit that everything we can practically do in garb is variations of 'display fighting' and focus on making it 'look' good.

Still, I know I have a minority view on the role of combat in reenactment so I will just smile & wave from over here in the corner...

[Guest]

[Guest]

If you're looking for rules for a reasonable level of minimum armour, you could do worse than adopt the SCA ones along with a gambeson and mail hauberk. You may want rigid thigh, shin and forearm protection as well.

You probably wouldn't want the rest of the rules though if you were wanting to do WMA stuff.

[Vorschlag]

Pardon my intrusion as I don't presently have anything to do with your rule systems, fight systems etc but shouldn't there be a minimum standard of armour for each system.

I.E for those pushing towards head blow, only people with full enclosed face protection should be on the field at the time.
For those sticking to what appears to be Naama's original 'fight' system less armour is needed but could also be dependent on weaponry etc.
For people pushing towards a more realistic and authentic combat gear standards need to be much higher etc?

Though as stated I don’t really have anything to do with Naama combat I do feel that Mr Tomes makes a good case.

[Guest]