 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Brynnus
Location: New Plymouth (formerly Napier)
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:48 am |
 |
|
On a side note patch you can see how a newbie may get confused about the requirements of a "blow" firstly you say this in your rules revision (in the reference section) :
"All blows must be controlled and a touch is all that is necessary for a hit to be counted.
A hit that leaves a bruise is excessively hard – you most likely won’t be yelled at but you are expected to show you are sorry."
then talk about ignoring "inconsequential" blows here:
| Patch wrote: | Having spent many years fighting at NAAMA events (as well as SCA and others but I am really talking NAAMA here) I have certainly noticed that sometimes a person will land a blow that is truly inconsequential. On the field these are usually, but not always ignored, it depends on the circumstances. Fighters with honour will of course communicate when they feel their shot was inadequate, and this does actually happen all the time.
I have also noticed that juniors are often confused at the difference between a good blow delivered with control and a poor blow that does no more than tug at their sleeve. Experience and training teaches us how to tell the good from the bad. The top fighters can perfectly well tell the difference.
-Patch. |
I don't think you can make a "rule" one way and then expect people to utalise a different requirement. of ammusing note is this sentance "I have also noticed that juniors are often confused at the difference between a good blow delivered with control and a poor blow that does no more than tug at their sleeve." where according to the rules a touch is a touch therfore rule wise there is NO difference.
I have always been of the opinion that the term "blow" in the original NAAMA rules needed clarification but i think the single touch will do less to clarify this
My 2c (rounded to 10c if paying not paying by eft-pos) |
|
|
 |
Patch
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:52 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | I dont think you can make a "rule" one way and then expect people to utalise a different requirement. of ammusing note is this sentance "I have also noticed that juniors are often confused at the difference between a good blow delivered with control and a poor blow that does no more than tug at their sleeve." where according to the rules a touch is a touch therfore rule wise there is NO difference.
I have always been of the opinion that the term "blow" in the original NAAMA rules needed clarification but i think the single touch will do less to clarify this
|
OK good question.
Contextually the two statements are talking about quite different things, the rules are talking about the boundaries of how to play, whereas the dialogue of experience is talking about how people communicate on the field and in the game.
At it’s core the first statement is about control, the rule is in place to stop people being injured unnecessarily. It is a limiter on heavy uncontrolled hits, whereas the second is about when a person has made contact with, perhaps the end of your cloak or sleeve but no contact with the target. Essentially too light a hit.
The simple answer is this, a touch to the target is all that is necessary for a kill in standard NAAMA fighting, hitting the trailing length of their cloak is not a hit because you have not made contact with the target.
Also.
Amongst experienced fighters you will often find an accord where an experienced combatant will tell their opponent not to take a touch, even though by the strict interpretation of the rules it would be considered sufficient. This is because the fighter on the ground has a more finely tuned perception of the fight than a simplified rule set can cover.
Cheers,
Eamon.
| Quote: | "All blows must be controlled and a touch is all that is necessary for a hit to be counted.
A hit that leaves a bruise is excessively hard – you most likely won’t be yelled at but you are expected to show you are sorry."
Having spent many years fighting at NAAMA events (as well as SCA and others but I am really talking NAAMA here) I have certainly noticed that sometimes a person will land a blow that is truly inconsequential. On the field these are usually, but not always ignored, it depends on the circumstances. Fighters with honour will of course communicate when they feel their shot was inadequate, and this does actually happen all the time.
I have also noticed that juniors are often confused at the difference between a good blow delivered with control and a poor blow that does no more than tug at their sleeve. Experience and training teaches us how to tell the good from the bad. The top fighters can perfectly well tell the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
stephan
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:42 pm |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: | G'day all,
I'd have to say that I pretty much agree with Colin in all this. If I was to think of a definition of what a medieval martial art is it'd be something like:
"a martial art as practiced in medieval times"
If we're debating about who is doing a "medieval martial art", I'll come straight out and say, that by my own definition, I'm not doing one. I'm doing modern sport fighting. I wear armour, some of which has a passing resemblance to the medieval armour. I use weapon simulators that poorly represent swords and spears. The rules I use do a poor job of simulating medieval war but an okay job of simulating tournament foot combat with battons.
I don't for a second believe that medieval soldiers would have trained like we do in NAAMA or SCA combat.
Is there anyone here who believes that The Black Prince and his knights practiced for war by doing "touch of death combat"? Or by kneeling if someone hit their cuisse hard enough to put a dent in their armour? I don't believe they did.
Researching by examining medieval fight books, armour, weapons, stories, skeletons etc can give us clues to what they actually did. If we put together many of these clues, we can hopefully get close to what they did. We might even, with a bit of luck, get some of it spot on.
Having said all of that, I don't believe that when people say "I am doing a medieval martial art" they are intending to deceive. Communication is about one person attempting to pass a concept from their mind to another person. "Medieval" and "martial art" both have clear meanings to most people.
If I say to someone "I do a medieval martial art", it is close enough for starters. If they decide to take the conversation further, they'll probably find out that I actually belong to a club that is an out of control fancy dress party.  |
i agree but i still think giveing someone a goot blow wit a swishing viking axe will hurt them reguard less of training but it helps to be trained in basics of fencing before you can call your self trained {hopefully that makes sense } and the best way to do that is by learning as close as possible how they fought because at the end of the day they did it for real and only the best survive |
|
|
|
Daniel Duxfield
Location: Deep in the heart of Orcland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:01 am |
|
|
I'm somewhat new to this forum but as a "fighter" I thought I would add to the discussion.
Much of what has been said about the "Medieval Martial Arts" was interesting to read. Having studied the Asian martial arts for many years now, principally Samurai sword work, I've found that sparring was always handled honourably. I've always viewed the weapon as the focus of my training, learning to use the weapon effectively in combat.
A hit was a hit and those hits were always as polite as you could make them while trying to "kill" my opponent. Meaning that "rounds of combat" were over in two to three moves. We were serious about full-contact and anywhere on the opponent was fair-game, bar the face. But again we were polite about it, but we were practising at killing each other.
The idea of mixing styles and techniques into my own training and when fighting/sparring always excites me. To be tested against some one who's style is very different from mine only serves to increase my skill level and theirs.
One thing I would like to do is to fight/spar with those who do use European weapons, while I used either my bokken or a steel Samurai sword, just to see how I would get on.
As a side note when I lived in Auckland, many years ago, my friends and I wanted to spar with the Sword and Shield group at Auckland Uni. But alas they wouldn't, whether out of fear that we might have better technique or that they were just close minded to fighting "alien" styles and weapons, I don't know. But we were sorely disappointed and so everyone missed out on the experience.
Keep up the good discussion.  |
|
|
|
Hadrian
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:13 pm true blow |
|
|
| The contents of this post were removed at authors request - Admin |
|
|
|
Victorius
Location: IMPERIVM ROMANA: The Roman club with a Living History focus.New Roman Club
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:51 pm Re: true blow |
|
|
| Hadrian wrote: | I am a few months away from comleting the first incarnation of an under harness that I have built for true blow sparing accross all periods. The intention of this ultralight development using modern material is to provide protection against lateral joint movement of knees, elbows, kneck and spine, cushion the sliding contact of a true blow and prevent penetration of a true thrust to all parts of the toirso -( true blow grappling is also cated for - in a harness that can be worn underneath (and thus invisible ) period harnesses that do not have this capacity. Once this project is compleated the opportunity to train against me will be extended . I will be posting the time and place for all commers to take it on. Obviously the participants will also be required to have to true blow
standard harness for mee to play back at them - the first meeting will be to test the harness. |
You know, Grizz has already posted on the matter of using modern materials instead of what the Ancients actually used. I suggest you re-read those posts to see why.
_________________
VICTORIVS, BA.MA.HONS.I, IMPERIVM. ROMANA |
|
|
|
Robbo
Location: In the Tree's
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:33 pm |
|
|
| Duxfield wrote: |
One thing I would like to do is to fight/spar with those who do use European weapons, while I used either my bokken or a steel Samurai sword, just to see how I would get on.
|
Been there. Done it. Bought the book. Own the t-shirt. Seen it done before by people good and bad.
The weapon is a tool, a focus for the combatant/fighter/warrior/person. A crap sword in the hands of a master will defeat a masterpiece in the hands of a fool.
Any sword. Any combatant. Any combination of styles.
*sigh* Now I have to figure out how to edit this so it doesn't as wankerish as it appears to me
_________________
Hail the Sky Traveller |
|
|
|
Hadrian
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:50 pm ancient materials |
|
|
| The contents of this post were removed at authors request - Admin |
|
|
|
conal
Site Admin
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:51 pm |
|
|
I had a guy in my soccer team at Massey that could nail a jug in 3.6 seconds.
Phuk he was fast.
At a winter BBQ once when he'd coma'd someone screwed a sausage into his belly button and said he looked like a dalek.
Phukkin funny. |
|
|
|
Oskar der Drachen
Location: Masterton
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:15 pm |
|
|
| Just how do you blind the eye of your mind again? |
|
|
|
Bogue
Sponsor
Location: Palmy
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:29 pm At the Altar of Blind IO |
|
|
And Oskar Der Drachen did ask:-
| Quote: | | Just how do you blind the eye of your mind again? |
Ah yes but the well written word can conjure images that leave you wanting to scour your brains of the sickness.
cheers
Bogue
We are talking about Daleks and fast jugs (Sounds like a movie)??? |
|
|
|
BigMac
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:45 pm Re: ancient materials |
|
|
| Hadrian wrote: |
Side note: There is a bloke in rajistahn that has a rivited wootz chain maile full harness - thats got to be hundreds of years old... you have no idea how fantasticly light this stuff is - |
Would love to see photos
_________________
There is a fine line between Hobby and Insanity |
|
|
|
stephan
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:03 am |
|
|
| what the hell is wootz? |
|
|
|
Hadrian
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:27 pm wootz |
|
|
| The contents of this post were removed at authors request - Admin |
|
|
|
Nathan
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:35 pm |
|
|
I know it's Wiki but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootz_steel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel
2 things though:
1) Non-Wootz folded steel blade is about the same weight as a Wootz steel one but they have diferent properties ie: flew, edge hardness, edge holding etc. Niether is the best overall, just different.
2) The skill of the BLADEsmith is of major importance.
Love to see the result.
_________________
Paper, Scissors, Poleaxe |
|
|
|
|
|
Please read the terms of use