More interesting Headblow?

[Stuart]

I fear that there is a divergence between reenactment fighting and WMA/HEMA developing here, with one side trying to impose a new system on the other. My sugestion is to keep them seperate. WMA/HEMA are welcome to go the Darth Vader fully meshed helm route- for their own display/contests.
I take the view that NAAMA rules are not changed. We must remain free.

[adrianf]

i dont see anyone trying to impose anything. we are just discussing this topic.

its only by incorporating new ideas that we can grow, and by simply stating "we do it this way cause thats the way its done" we are no better than the stereotypical authenticity nazis

when you state that NAAMA must remain free, does that include the freedom to discuss new ideas?

[Vorschlag]

Well said.

[griff]

blackcrow
well said

[Colin]

I'm so glad that you said that Adrian!

It still indicates, unfortunately, that some re-enactors are under the delusion that WMA is trying to impose some sort of combat rules on them. I've deliberately kept my involvement in this thread to a minimum, because at the end of the day I couldn't care less whether re-enactors adopted WMA "combat rules" or not.

This thread has been about some re-enactors wanting to include more head targets than previously allowed in non-SCA re-enactment combat. Obviously some re-enactors do not believe re-enactment (combat) is fine just the way it is and want to explore other avenues. I find it disingenuous to claim that WMA is somehow trying to control (or impose) anything on re-enactors.

[Stuart]

It might be helpful to know where this debate started from, and from what fighting discipline ?
Clearly we all seek to improve our combat skills, and for diversity to flourish each style must have a forum. Is it right for another style to impose it`s will by lobbying for a change of NAAMA rules ?
This is an important question. It merits some debate.

[Vorschlag]

Before Colin beats me to it, your not only making an irrelevant appeal by trying to place blame on a group for people within re-enactment groups voicing their opinions and ideas on a topic, but your also bordering on both a strawman and the red-herring argument based on your attempt to not only side track the topic but also pointing blame at a person or group for an open discussion of opinions, thoughts and feelings.

Scrolling back over the pages you've voiced your opinion multiple times, yet anyone who disagrees with you is somehow now imposing their will.

[Grayson]

Stuart seems to think that anyone who wishes to change the combat rules, is some dark agent from another combat style trying to take over Naama.

Wake up and read the posts properly, all the debate and discussion has come from reenactors with comments by practioners of WMA/HEMA giving insite to how they do head strikes safely.

People don't want Naama combat to become stagnant and boring for the fighters, bringing in new ideas and opening up new target zones is a good idea.

[Grayson]

Now back to topic.

Vertical/crowning blows are a good start to getting into head blow, as stated the emphasis most be put on control and saftey.

Horizontal shots may need to be looked at more indepth. Better helms would need to be used, probably full face for saftey, with a minimum thickness, proper suspension harness fitted

Face Thrusts, I'm not sure what equiptment would suit for this attack aside from the fencing mask.

I'd probably be happy taking horizontal shots in the helm i have but not face thrusts.

My two cents worth.

[Stuart]

I an neither WMA or SCA. I am a multi-period re-enactor.
I am not suggesting that "some dark agent" is trying to take over NAAMA. What I am worred about is that pressure is being applied by fighters who work in a limited style ( ie, WMA, HEMA, et al ) and seek to force their
" one-size fits all" style on the rest of us.
I for one do not support the demand that mesh-up helms and fencing masks are to be considered "normal' attire for battle reenactment.
Most existing dark-age helms cannot easily be modified into Darth Vader head gear. Any decapidation blows will force the faceplate into the face of a wearer. SCA helms are customised, with additional features to overcome this issue. But, standard re-enactment helms are not.
I think it is profoundly selfish for some to lobby for a manditory change to all of the re-enactment community just so a minority can do head thrusts or decapidation shots. Need I say that to try this with steel weapons ( and anything less than full plate armour ) is asking for injury ?
I again must ask if anyone has actually tried to do decaps & head thusts in anything other than in a great helm ? We seen to have devoted a great deal of time to hot air on-line debates, but I have read no evidence, whatsoever, of any practical field-tests ?
Any volenteers for a test bashing ?

[Inigo]

[Scott]

[Stuart]

So why was this topic first posted on a reenactment combat catagory, not an obvious WMA topic heading ?
-also, much of this thread has been debated by re-enactors who felt that steel combat re-enactment was included.
If it for WMA exclusively, then clearly say so. Then the rest of us can be assured that our hobby is not going to be changed without our knowledge or consent.

[Scott]

Again, I do not understand your position.

As I read it, the thread asks a hypothetical question: if headblow combat was to be changed in NAAMA combat, how would it / could it be done?

It's fine to argue that it shouldn't be changed. It's a valid position and one I can respect (I myself had five fun years fighting to NAAMA rules).

It's also fine to argue that it could be changed slightly without much difference to equipment (if at all).

Obviously face thrusts are out. You need mesh, which as you pointed out is a royal pain in the arse to put into a helmet and anyway (and more importantly) no one seems to want it anyway.

Decapitation blows: people haven't really discussed this. There has been talk of a horizontal strike to the head. If the bulk of combatants are wearing helmets which do not protect this area, then again, it couldn't be done. Decap blows would require neck protection as well as a full helm, so are well beyond the scope of this discussion.

Really, the only valid changes that could possibly be made without changing equipment would be to include 45 degree descending strikes to the top of the head.

So, covering it all off in point form:
- This is a hypothetical discussion, no-one intends to change anything
- Yes, safety is a big issue
- Yes, equipment is also a big issue (it goes hand in hand with safety)
- There's really only limited scope to make changes in any case
- It's OK not to want to make changes
- WMA aren't trying to take over anything

We cool?

[Inigo]