 Ambidexterity, two weapon fighting |
  |
 Aug 15 2004, 08:42 AM
Post
#76
|
|
|
Street Doc  Group: Admin Posts: 3,508 Joined: 2-March 04 From: Neverwhere Member No.: 6,114  |
I was going to write a long post but I think I can sum it up real quick: SCA (like shadowrun) IS NOT REAL. Seriously, guy, you're talking about guys in armor with swords defending your children? From what? Other guys in armor with swords? Does Detroit have a real problem with evil knights breaking into people's homes? Buy a damn gun and stop living in a fantasy world. |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 15 2004, 08:59 AM
Post
#77
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
If your sword is razor sharp, slap whoever sharpened it because they are an unmitigated IDIOT. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2004, 03:08 PM
Post
#78
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
And obviously it doesn't.
You mentioned wrestling (and most unarmed combat maneuvers) is not allowed in SCA, and I replied:
When training the moves (especially early on), they do indeed use rather light swords. Long one-hand swords in the 2-2.5lbs range and slightly heavier long swords. Just how are those weapons "useless in a battle" I simply cannot understand, since those are the kinds of swords that were used in Italy and Britain for hundreds of years. I would assume they were used to kill dozens of thousands of people in thousands of battles.
It's not a question of explicitly teaching "fancy sword catching techniques" and I never claimed such a thing. Grabbing an opponents weapon is a very simple thing anyone with strong fingers, or indeed anyone with a leather glove, can easily do in close quarters, if the opportunity presents itself. It is only one of a very large number of "tricks" that one simply cannot do in many combat simulations. Just like there are a huge number of "tricks" in modern ground combat, or air combat, that you can never reproduce in any simulation. Which is why the combatant who does not rely on any simulation, but is well trained in how real combat works, has an upper hand.
The only sword school teacher I've ever talked to was a person who obviously didn't think fencing should have any rules. The manuals that they used as a basis for the training (Fiore dei Liberi's Fior Battaglia (1409) and Vadi's De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi (c.a 1485) for the long sword) described some of the methods I mentioned earlier, like kicking a person in the balls or breaking his knees, and it explicitly describes methods to kill an enemy, with a few tips on disarming or otherwise disabling them (to "kidnap" enemy knights, or to avoid killing people you don't want dead). Therefore, from my experience, these schools do not teach fighting by any set of rules, other than beating the enemy, which usually means a kill.
Since obviously you haven't engaged them in real combat, I don't see the relevance. Also, I'd have to take your word (and you aren't in a very good position to judge this yourself) on you both having invested the same amount of time and effort into learning how to fight.
I did not know how the rules. I've seen a huge number of pictures, heard tales and seen video clips. But I knew there must be rules, I had an idea what they probably look like (thus my questions on what counts as a kill, and if unarmed combat moves are allowed) and there are some things you can easily figure out with common sense, since you are indeed using wooden clubs instead of swords. One might say you are judging historically accurate fighting with just as little basis, considering your comments above. I won't, though, since I'm pretty sure you know much more than you let off, simply because it would not help your position if you said everything you do know about historically accurate fighting.
No I don't. The original comment was on the fact that you use wooden clubs and you are yourself padded, I simply misrepresented myself. I might have been thinking about some of the things I had heard about polearms, which (AFAIK) are indeed padded in SCA, at least some times. And you yourself said earlier:
Although I have no idea with what kind of weapon this was done, it was obviously in reference to the critique on sword fighting in SCA.
That's true, many of the manuals do indeed mostly deal with dueling with no or light armor. That doesn't mean that's all that the schools teach. The teacher I talked to (and his students, and the representation they did, and their small bits of literature) did put a lot of stress on exactly how all that relates to armored combat. He even taught fighting with pole hammers against heavily armored opponents using the same basic methods as were originally developed for dueling with long swords and little armor.
The only swords with a chance of piercing 2060s body armor would indeed be the Weird Tech ones and those with some mass and a tiny piercing point (with thrusts only, of course). Even RL vests (without rifle plates, since you can't get through those fuckers with any melee weapon) provide protection against sword swings in excess of what the heaviest full plate does. The NIJ Protection Level III stab resistant body armor is designed to withstand a stiletto stab that only the strongest/most skillful 5% of the US adult male population can produce. Only ~1% of the US adult male population can produce a stab strong enough to penetrate 20mm into NIJ PL III (stab resistant) armor with a stiletto. I think it would be fair to say that almost any body armor of the 2060s would be completely impenetrable by melee weapons, except some oddities like Form Fitting vs Pole Hammer. At the current rate of body armor development, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Form Fitting would prevail even there. Fine blades or similar technology which allows for a tiny cross-section and an insanely sharp edge and point for the blade might fare decently well, especially with stabs. Feel free to describe such weapons too fragile to be used against metal or in a knife/sword fight -- at the very least, even with 2060s tech, those should probably dull/chip really quick.
They are supposed to be worn with a leather glove inside, are they not? Grib a sword firmly with those, and the wielder of the sword has to yank really fricken hard to free the blade. Worst case scenario is that you get a cut on your hand or fingers. Compared to the best case scenario...
You've got legs, haven't you? Elbows?
Apart from what Kagetenshi already said about razor sharp swords, there's no fucking way you'll ever take off a finger that way. If you do manage to yank the sword hard enough to free it, the guy who's doing the grabbing probably has intact reflexes to release as soon as it happens, and he's given a bit more time by the glove he wears. You might cut his hand a bit. But that obviously depends on a huge number of variables, and someone skilled enough to grab a sword probably knows when to do it.
So you're saying: No unarmed combat maneuver can ever be of any use in a real sword fight. People in a real sword fight act exactly the same as in an SCA fight, and their state of mind is exactly the same. No combat maneuver that cannot be reproduced with a thick wooden sword can ever be of any use in a real sword fight. The rules for doing damage and kills in an SCA fights are completely infallible and absolutely realistic in every and each way. Just to mention a few. Well, yeah, with those kinds of assumptions SCA is pretty damn good training for real fighting. Needless to say, I disagree on a few of those.
I've never even heard of any of those. No, I'm sure I'm not mistaking SCA for anything else. The pictures, stories and videos I've seen have been pretty explicit in that regard.
All other things being equal, a short sword will always be more difficult to snap in half than a long sword. This fact anybody (with some experience in firewood, for example) can testify to. Thus it's far (several times) more likely to get a 40" blade snapped in half than it is a 16" blade. Not to mention that most short swords seem to have a wider blade (and possibly even thicker) than long one-handers. And your link: http://www.swordschool.com/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aug 15 2004, 05:50 PM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
I have one more comment to add.
If two long swords is such a frickin superior method of fighting... You'd think in the millions of sword fights in thousands of years of battle, you'd see just a few more techniques taught using two swords, wouldn't you? karma |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2004, 07:00 PM
Post
#80
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Method, what are you talking about? Of course the SCA is not real. What is your point? Saying that full contact fighting is not real fighting is kind of a stupid point if that is what you are getting at? That would be like saying live fire at the rifle range is useless in training a soldier how to shoot. Do you think I am saying bandits are walking around Detroit attacking my kids? That is really out in left field too. I said I would rather take a handful of the best SCA fighters to protect my family "if we were alive back in those times" before gunpowder. Any simpleton could have figured that out. And I have a gun, several of them. And I am a damn good shot. I was a Marine and never fired less than expert. Austere Emancipator, you keep running your mouth about this Italian school of fighting. I asked for a link. A short video of their fighting methods maybe? Still waiting for anything but your "opinion", and you have never even tried either the SCA fighting or this ficticious Italian school that produces thousands of killers. You think it is easy to catch a sword? You obviously have done little or no sword fighting. Unless you are talking about these "fencing" fights that have little effect against armored opponents. Close in fighting is a serious issue when you only have the top of the sword to make a kill with. There is nothing "tricky" about that. In fact, there is no "huge" list of tricks as you claim. You have zero experience and can't even produce the name of the school you are wanting me to compare with. All I have is your say so that it exists! And from what I have read that is not much evidence or support of your claim.
How do you explain our Rangers and Marines who have never been in combat, armed with just small arms engaging in firefights with long time veteran Taliban forces and getting 100-1 kill ratios? I'm talking about the hundreds of contact when air support had no play in the fight. I'll tell you, training. Having been in combat is great, but training is more valueable. It's not the mystery you make it out to be, try not to watch so much tv.
What experience? Talking to one teacher in a "fencing" school? If you really do know a fencer ask him how he feels he would do against someone trained in full contact fighting armed with a shield and battleaxe wearing plate armor with a closed face helmet vs his sabre, wire mask, and heavy cloth shirt in a real fight. Here is a school that teaches Fiore dei Liberi's Fior Battaglia and Vadi's De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi. "practice is conducted with a variety of weapons including padded "safety" weapons, wooden wasters and rebated steel weapons." Padded safety weapons? Ask your fencing instructor how he will disarm me when I have a lanyard and my glove is wedged tightly into a basket hilt? Heh he. http://www.geocities.com/st_martins_academy/about.html Here is a link to a video of the style of fighting you are placing all your bets on. They don't look to realistic in their training methods to me, none of them look to scary either. Near the bottom of the page is three pictures, clicking on the produce a small video. This is your better fighting system? http://www.aemma.org/misc/events/liberiNov...kshopReview.htm
Ha ha! How true. But the thing is I am willing to fight anyone you can produce to prove my point, and I have fought quite a few of these very type demonstrations. Including out of armor fighting. I "know" what I am able to do, but you are only "guessing" since you have never fought at all. I "guess" that makes you reading a few books, looking at some pictures, watching tv, listening to tales, and browsing the internet a bit at a disadvantage when discussing fighting with a person with my experience, huh? I live in the Detroit area btw. If anyone is serious, I can meet within a hundred mile radius on any given Sunday to test out anything you wish. I have extra armor and weapons too. If you come here I can supply 30-50 other trained men to see if any of your techniques would work in a series of battle conditions as well. I knocked someone out using my normal sword. He had on a steel helmet made out of 14 gauge steel and an 1 1/2" foam padding inside. I only did it once, my point is SCA fighters hit hard. It takes alot to penetrate armor as you can see from the link I provided earlier. I honestly don't know what you could do differently to add realism short of allowing sword grabs as you suggest and other BS "tricks" that wouldn't have any noticable impact on fighting.
I never said that. Your claim is that these manuever would drasticly change the realism. My claim is that there is not that many tricks out there. Hardly any of them work. You are going to kick me when I wear full armor? The extra weight gives me more mass to resist pushes and I am ready for a shield bash with your whole body. What do you think your foot is going to do besides provide me with an easy target to chop at?
This is it? This is your awesome realisticly trained warriors? I'll fight the whole class simultaneously to make it fair. I doubt any part of my body would be touched. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Aug 15 2004, 07:12 PM
Post
#81
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
And I know people with those "flimsy bamboo swords" who have knocked other people out through bogu with them. Your point?
I don't think there's a person who has ever lived who could melee a dedicated kindergarten class and not be touched. Not be injured, sure, but not be touched? ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 15 2004, 07:15 PM
Post
#82
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
That does not suprise me in the least. You are of course missing thousands of years of Thai history when you state this. Consider that since heavy armor is obviously superior you would think that everyone had a full suit of it too? You would also think that none of the soldiers from the richest nation on earth would be sent to Iraq without body armor either? In short it was partly because of the expense. But the main reason is that not too many people are ambidextrous. It takes alot of strength, skill, and coordination to wield two swords. Those that are able to do it and have the opportunity to break the traditional mold like Musashi excel with the style. I have never once asked for it to be a general technique in Shadowrun. Paying for ambidexterity is a very hefty cost. The restriction of that list that was developed is my complaint. It is not complete, does not even cover traditional weapon pairings, and does not account for recent modern fighting forms like the SCA. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2004, 07:28 PM
Post
#83
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Seriously, either read my messages or simply stop trying to flame people. You said they use swords that are useless in a battle. I said they use the kinds of swords that have been used to kill dozens of thousands of people. Just how the heck did you come up with the above is beyond me.
Since everything you can't do in SCA is a "fancy trick", yes there are. With that definition, saying that there aren't would be the same thing as saying that a real fight with real swords would be fought exactly like SCA fighting happens. If you're really saying that, then, well, I guess I really should stop discussing this with you.
Again, it seems you haven't read my messages. Soldiers are "well trained in how real combat works", they do not "rely on any simulation", like I already said in my earlier message about MILES vs real combat. The battlefield efficiency of a US Army Ranger has much more to do with all the other things they are taught than just MILES or similar battlefield simulators.
I wasn't the one asking, but he was asked "how should these fighting methods be adapted to fighting against heavily armored opponents", and he explained at length. He and the pupils demonstrated a number of attacks with the different weapons (including, just in case you managed to ignore it the first time, a pole hammer) specifically meant to disable opponents in full plate. The main system didn't change one bit, only a few of the strikes.
Erm, I only mentioned disarming as reference to the small bits in the manuals that have to do with it. The extreme rarity of those maneuvers in the manuals, and the lack of training given for such things in any serious school is probably due to the fact that it's very rarely done/possible in real combat. Lucky for me I never said anything else about it, eh?
Most of the people in those clips are first-timers to any serious martial art. Would you like me to find a bunch of pictures and video clips of total SCA n00bs or a bunch of geeks in full plate with wooden swords, and then denounce SCA based on that?
What an intriguing sentence.1) Allowing sword grabs would increase realism. 2) Sword grabs are bullshit. How about allowing all unarmed attacks?
So you'd say kicking would never do any good in a swordfight, especially when people wear armor? OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
That should indeed be fun to watch. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Aug 15 2004, 07:29 PM
Post
#84
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
That was an exaggeration. I have done it hundreds of times against men I have trained though. Other Marines in awesome physical condition, hockey players, martial arts masters, (if 4th degree Dan in Tae Kwando is a master?), bikers, college football players, etc.. I usually get them in armor first then I stand perfectly still and have them hit me in the head as hard as they possibly can to show them that the armor will protect them from any sword blow, then I tell them they will not be able to touch any part of my body and to try while I just stand there defending. This gets them to fight as hard as they can and gives me a good idea what I have to work with. I can take anyone who has not trained in full contact sword fighting and do the same. Sorry, I don't believe you when you say that you have seen people knocked out by bamboo swords. I have been hit by those swords hundreds of times by pretty tough guys. It's always "I know someone" who did this or that with a guy like you. Come back to reality. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2004, 08:16 PM
Post
#85
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
I am not trying to flame you, friend. You are belittling my sport and I am defending it. That is as far as it goes between us. You have never fought in the SCA or fencing or any other armed combat as far as I can tell? I have. And I credit it for saving my life in a real knife fight. I'm certainly not trying to flame anyone nor do I care to engage in that sort of conversation. I am confident in what I can do with a sword and I have alot of years of personal experience to draw my conclusions on. If you attack me with questions I will defend with answers. Why you continue to belittle me after I have explained myself is beyond me? The school you produced as evidence of superior fighting is light years away from realistic compared to SCA fighting and this should be obvious even to you. I think it is funny that people actually pay for that guy's instructions.
I never claimed that SCA rules mimic exactly how a real sword fight would go. I have said that the difference would be very minimal. As close to real as possible with safety in mind. Similar to top gun training, live fire ranges, and MILES gear, which effectively produce the best soldiers on earth, able to go into battle against crafty veterans of real war and get kill ratios of 100-1. The reason? Advanced, superior training that was unavailable to those that learned real war fighting opponents who did not have the advantage of the training techniques employed by the US. It blows your theory on real combat completely away.
Now you are going to tell me how Marines train and what we relied on when I was a Marine too, huh? I was trained in close combat techniques as a Marine. They do not do anything for realism like the SCA. And our green soldiers go into battle against veterans and do just fine from simulation.
Wow, a real pole hammer? Impressive. Has he ever used it under a hail of arrows facing a shield wall supported by spearmen? Has he ever used it full contact? Just because he can demonstrate fishing techniques to a class doesn't mean he can catch any fish. Ever wonder why so many black belts get their asses kicked in real fights where full contact kick boxers like Muay Thai trained fighters don't? Punching at empty air, pulling your blows, and using set piece techniques are a poor way to learn.
Key words. "Rarity of those maneuvers". Yet earlier you say those maneuvers make a "huge" difference in fighting. And that there are so many of them. The fact is sword fighting relies on just a few simple techniques. Slash, thrust, footwork, position, these tricks are not a significant factor in fighting. You think you can grab my sword with a leather glove? It's easy to do? Try it. Get cut in the hand and start losing blood, see how long your stamina holds up. I will still have a second weapon to kill you with. What would that even accomplish? Nothing. If you have a better video of your school, produce it. If you want to find some noobs fighting in the SCA and make fun of them go for it. My challenge is still open to anyone who wishes to take it. I will match the top fighters in the SCA with the top fighters of any sword school. I will be happy to represent the SCA anywhere within 100 miles of Detroit and I am not even a top fighter myself anymore. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Aug 15 2004, 08:20 PM
Post
#86
|
|||||||||||
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
Okay, there's one. You'll note I didn't say there weren't any.
So a major reason that you only see a very very VERY few techniques taught with two long blades was the expense, then? Sword's weren't exactly cheap, no, but so expensive as to prevent the widespread development of a "superior" fighting style?
As I recall, the two-weapon techniques Musashi developed were mostly for long/short combos, not long/long. Musashi was a phenominal swordsman, but he was also considered a freak and a dishonorable fighter by many, even then.
Perhaps it was that even in a little used style in the modern day of fighting, swords, dual long blades is such a rare thing in the histories that the writers perhaps thought it wasn't worth covering? Something clearly superior would have spread in use more. Period. Even if folks were not largely ambidextrous, if two long blades were so all fired effective in actual lethal kill-the-other-guy-dead combat schools would have developed all over the place to try and teach it. -karma |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Aug 15 2004, 08:52 PM
Post
#87
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
You are putting words in my mouth here. I did not say a "major" reason was the expense. Yes it is a reason worth mentioning. Certainly to mass produce swords to people who did not feel comfortable using an off hand weapon. The major reason is that humans are rarely ambidextrous so it is not something that would appeal to the masses or make military sense to try and force. Keep in mind very few "manuals" were produced in an oral culture either. That a specific "style" of fighting was not mentioned is not suprising when the style would require a rare physical qualification like ambidexterity to excel at or become economically feasible. Your point ignores too much to be valid. It ignores thousands of years of fighting by the Thais as well, as I have already pointed out. The Thais, who produce more champion prize fighters per capita than any other nation on earth. I wouldn't ignore a distinguished battle record like that. Hardly Musashi trained with two long swords as far as I am aware of. He said to choose weapon length in accordance to your own strength. http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/8187.../Gorinnosho.htm From the Book of Five Rings: "It is not difficult to wield a sword in one hand; the Way to learn this is to train with two long swords, one in each hand. It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first. Bows are difficult to draw, halberds are difficult to wield. In each case, you get used to the tool: as you become accustomed to the bow your pull will become stronger, and as you become used to wielding the long sword, you will gain the power of the Way and wield the sword easily." Note, he says to train with two long swords. This is the whole basis from Musashi. If you use weapons you are able to use with your own strength the length won't matter as it pertains to conforming to the style. I have said all along to choose your own secondary weapon and forget rigid rules in learning an "art" form if you want to fight realistically and effectively. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 15 2004, 09:07 PM
Post
#88
|
|||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
And you said you are above flaming me, huh? I didn't even mention Marines, I mentioned Rangers. I know a thing or two how Rangers or trained, and how soldiers in general are trained. In that, I really do have hands-on experience.
If MILES is so superior to anything else you can teach to soldiers, why isn't it the only thing used in their training? Why isn't it even a central part?
Obviously not a real pole hammer in full contact, would produce quite a lot of corpses, (though he has, to my understanding, done a bit of SCA, so it wouldn't surprise me if he had used a padded wooden staff in full contact) and I'd guess he hasn't used it in those other mentioned conditions either. I'll readily admit that SCA is better training for a mass battle in a medieval battlefield than most such schools, because the schools mostly deal with dueling or a small number of opponents.
I absolutely agree. If a martial art is to teach people how to handle themselves in a real, life-or-death battle, then they must have a lot more than the above three going for them. And most sword schools do -- or at least that one does. SCA-style fighting might be a very good training excercise to be used by such sword schools, for armored combat, in lieu of fighting with real swords and pulling punches. Perhaps I should have said this earlier as well. Just like training soldiers with MILES certainly helps to get them operate better in a real battlefield, full contact fighting with heavy armor and wooden swords will undoubtedly be a valuable excercise for most people who would like to learn how to do medieval battle. But SCA alone isn't the optimal solution.
Key words. Disarming vs everything else not done in SCA combat. Re: video clips and pictures, I do not have good media of either sort, nor do I feel the need to produce either. I have personally witnessed too many Paintball vs Airsoft "discussions" of that sort to ever fall into that trap. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Aug 15 2004, 11:23 PM
Post
#89
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
Blackhand is right, Niten Ichi Ryu students do train with two long swords.
This is to make your off-hand accustomed to handling a sword simultaniously with your strong hand. However, a long and short sword combo is the preferred set for combat. This is in large part because a samurai would have a long and short sword available, but seldom two long swords. Also, when fighting indoors, two long swords can hinder your ability. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2004, 12:24 AM
Post
#90
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Is that a flame? I originally said Marines and Rangers. You responded to that. I could add Delta Force, SEALs, British SAS, etc.. They are all light infantry able to get in and mix it up with various forces around the world. They all kicked ass and few had ever seen real combat, but all performed awesomely. You seem to ignore that point. A tank platoon with Bradleys drove right into a perfectly laid Iraqi trap and decimated the Iraqis. Why? They had never been in so called "real combat". So it must have been in the training. Which it is of course, and you know it is. You say you know a thing or two about how Rangers are trained? Like you know your stuff about sword fighting? Thru pictures and internet? Have you ever trained with Rangers? Last you said you were from Finland. I was in Marine Recon for 4 years, I know all about advanced training techniques when it comes to modern warfare as well. it certainly doesn't take absolute realism to train men into elite fighters. And yet, the sca goes way beyond any military training I have ever received in the area of realism, but still you nit pick every word I have to say.
I never claimed it is. We are right back to money though. We just can't afford to outfit every unit with MILES gear. If we could we would. Kind of the same reason we couldn't even afford to send all our guys into battle with life saving body armor until a big stink was raised over it. We do the best we can with what we have. As a member of Recon I can assure you that I had access to all the cutting edge training money could afford though.
And the SCA deals mostly with single combat tournament fighting. Melee is secondary and not even trained for in many locations simply because they can't get enough fighters to come to practices to form lines with. If your friend's instructor has had SCA experience then I am sure he recognizes his own school's shortcomings and has an idea how fierce the competition is over here with access to tens of thousands of fighters struggling to be on top.
That school does not. I looked at the required gear list and can tell you they do not cover anything near full contact. That school is one step up from being useless from what I saw. If they added full contact, did weight training, pell work, and provided instruction it would still not be as good as SCA fighting. Why not? That school does not have 25,000 members to compete with and learn first hand if it's techniques actually work or not against a wide range of exotic techniques and styles pulled from the entire range of human recorded history like the SCA does. In fact that school is rather limited to just one manual taken from one period in time, which may or may not have been useful during it's day.
I don't know what would please you? You jumped all over me with your "opinions" and without a single bit of experience to back your claims up and give me this school as a basis for your accusations? The SCA teaches fighting techniques from all over the world and from all thru history. Don't base your opinion of the SCA on the Finnish Barony. It is very well organized and ran over here. I think musashi would be impressed himself. Certainly no school or training currently available can match what the SCA provides with caliber of membership, realism, level of competition, technical knowledge, and practicality. In fact few, if any, even come close. If you want to continue attacking me and what I do I will continue defending myself. Please accept my apology if you think I am flaming you personaly. It is not my intention. I have fought people from schools exactly like the one your friend goes to. It is no contest unless they have also had previous SCA training. More power to him if he has found a way to make money. Maybe I should open my own school? I would require students to fight in SCA events if I did though. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Aug 16 2004, 01:09 AM
Post
#91
|
|||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
No, I absolutely am not ignoring that point. What I'm saying is that the reasons why 1st SFOD-Delta, SEALs, SF, SAS, SBS and the rest perform so well on the battlefield don't that much to do with access to battlefield simulation, such as MILES. And yet you keep bringing this point up.
I said I have hands-on experience on how soldiers in general are trained, and I said I know a thing or two about how US Army Rangers are trained. Hell no I've never trained with Rangers. I've read a few books, seen a number of documents, etc.
You did say MILES (and live fire ranges, which is basically the melee equivalent of beating a sack with a club) produces soldiers with no real combat experience who can get 100-1 kill ratios against Taleban. You said that the only reason for this are the "advanced, superior training" techniques that only rich western militaries can afford (ie MILES and other high-tech battlefield simulations). To me that really sounds like you think MILES should be the cornerstone of military training where ever it can be afforded. And yet it isn't.
Well, I'm a bit more likely to believe the instructor than you on that one than.
While SCA does have more than 30,000 members, that doesn't mean there are 30,000 members who can and do fight well. Neither does it mean that anyone can ever test their techniques against even a significant fraction of them. Regardless, I'll admit that this is a strong point of SCA. Variety can't be too bad.
I'm not. I've never seen SCA live (or at least wasn't aware it was about SCA). I'm basing my opinions on the aforementioned pictures and tales and videos, which are invariably from the US. My only point has been from the beginning that you shouldn't judge the real combat applications of an armed combat technique based only on a combat simulation, because simulations alone never are good enough. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Aug 16 2004, 01:31 AM
Post
#92
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Rory, when it comes down to it, the SCA is the equivalence of real medieval fighting as Laser Tag is to SWAT Training. It's a total joke. So what if you guys dress up in some fake armor and prance around in a field with fake weapons reanacting some battle? That doesn't change the fact that you're in fake armor waving around fake weapons in a fake battle with people not out to kill you or defend their homeland.
If you really believe otherwise, seek help. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2004, 10:27 AM
Post
#93
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Look, here is the very first thing you had to say to me. You essentialy attacked me and called me a liar from the very first words you addressed me with.
The SCA has every fighting style imagineable and some that are unique. The SCA has fighting instructors that are every bit as qualified to teach as anyone else out there. In fact some instructors that teach authentic fighting schools do fight in the SCA as well. What sets the SCA apart is that it has full contact fighting that allows all the instruction, exercising, drills, and techniques to be tested out in realistic simulations. What the SCA also has is a wide mix of competition and infrastructure. nowhere on earth that I have seen has this been matched. Would someone in your friend's school stand a chance against someone in the SCA? No. Not even a slim chance. I have seen it too many times before. You obviously think I am a liar and to that all I can say is I am willing to fight anyone you can arrange for me to. And I will be more than happy to use two long swords doing it. Which is not any of your precious manuals. In fact you have been calling me a liar quite often over the last few days. I don't have the exact stats with me, but it is a fact that less than half the soldiers involved in WWII did not ever fire their rifle. You said "I don't see what this really has to do with anything, but I also doubt that's true." You obviously have a problem with me personaly it would seem? Read the Anabasis. Pay close attention to the beginning. You will see that not every man in a battle took part in it. There was simply alot of manuevering and often battles were over before any of the back ranks ever had to engage. I would say the ratio of participation was about the same as it is now. Lacking any hard data we may never know. Machiavelli in, The Prince, describes battles in the wars of the Italian city-states as being absolutely casualty free. How is this possible and where does it fit into your idea that dozens of thousands of men were killed in war using your friend's school's techniques? My point was to say that not every ancient swordsmen learned anything at all from participating in the actual war. In fact it is unlikely that any of the actual "skill" it took to wield weapons correctly was learned from a few brief days of fighting where you may or may not have taken part in anything. This means that training is what made a soldier good at being a soldier. And all successful ancient soldiers like the Spartans and Romans trained using wooden weapons to simulate combat...exactly what the SCA does. So what does the SCA lack? Well of course the biggest thing is mental. There is no fear of death. What this tends to do is make heros out of all of us. We fight to the death in our wars, to the last man standing, so this makes our methods unrealistic in that aspect. But as far as the actual mechanics of fighting and building the actual skill needed to fight no. I don't see any way of preventing it. Short of bloodshed there is no way to do it. The SCA does the best job recreating ancient warfare that there is. It has saved my life in a real knife fight and I do not believe I would be alive today without my training.
No I don't keep bringing it up. I am not even the first person to have mentioned MILES gear. My only point is that TRAINING is what produces the best soldiers. This goes the same for the modern tanker and the ancient knight. Using MILES gear is not the whole training program. There is dry firing exercises using blanks. There is marksmenship training using the firing range. There is manuever drills. There is land navigation training. There is close order battle training. Etc.. You miss my whole point apparantly. These are all simulations of one sort or another. Get my point? Simulations. The SCA provides training and techniques taught by men just as qualified as instructors at any of these fighting schools you favor. In fact many of the instructors and students fight in the SCA as well. What the SCA has over these schools though is numbers, level of competition, variety, and the biggest thing is full contact. Full contact in the SCA allows for you to apply your techniques against a variety of opponents and styles. The school you named does not have anything close to matching that. You want to know who would win between an Italian fencer and a samurai? Look to the SCA and you will get your answer. If you just learn one way of fighting you will be at a handicap if it ever came to really using your skill in real life.
Without calling you a liar I have pointed out that you are sitting here arguing with me over something you do not personaly know anything about. I have trained with Rangers. Marine Recon has Ranger trained personel. You have read books and think you are a know it all. You have a friend who said a friend knew something about sword fighting. By time it gets to me what you are arguing with me about is 2 or 3 times removed. I am writing directly from personal experience. Not a single point you have challenged me on has made any sense. And the whole time I have been very willing to put my money where my mouth is and meet any instructor you can provide to test out who can fight better. I've done that enough times already to know the likely outcome.
Another common thing you seem to like doing is putting words in my mouth. If I say one thing you add to it. I did not say that "only" rich countries can produce superior fighters. I said we would likely assign MILES gear to every unit we have if we had the funding to do so. My point about our Rangers and Marines is only that TRAINING is all that is needed to produce a superior fighting man. Combat experience is less important the more simulation training you have. In older modern armies combat experience was certainly much more valuable than it is today. As far as I am concerned we can drop the whole MILES gear debate right here.
Here you go once again calling me a liar. Anyone who knows anything about fighting can look at the gear requirments and see that there is little or no full speed fighting in heavy armor in this hot shot school of yours. Nor have you actualy spoken with the instructor either. To say the instructor of that school would not agree with me is assuming a bit more than I will give you credit for. Especialy if as you say he has fought in the SCA before. Maybe I will make inquiries myself if there is an email link.
You think that is all that fight? I am not even a current member of the SCA myself and I go to events and practices every week. That number only shows who signs up for the membership cards. And it represents the number of current members only. Just in one kingdom out of 17 there were over 10,000 authorized fighters. Some were current members some not. Membership has little to do with the numbers who fight. In one event in Pennsylvania there are over 12,000 members on sight each year. Are you saying that the SCA is so fanaticlal that over 1/3 of them will gather at one location for one event? This is just a war between two of the 17 kingdoms. Others do come, but the event is a war between the eastern and middle kingdoms. Want variety? How about 4 or 5 thousand authorized fighters standing on the field in armor at one time. Charlamegne's army was not even that large and he conquered Europe with it.
Ok, then since you don't really know what you are talking about don't you think that someone who has been fighting for over 20 years does? I am not just BSing here. You've called me a liar at least three or four times and I don't appreciate it.
No, the only joke I see is your analogy. You are obviously clueless when it comes to fighting. I doubt you could fight your way out of a wet paper bag. Did you look at any of the video I provided a link to or are you just running your mouth to sound stupid? Nobody that knows anything about fighting would agree with you. If you think it is such a joke and so easy why don't you give it a try one time? I'd love to be the guy that shows you just how funny a "fake" sword can be. Try talking about something you know about next time you insult me. Does the armor in this videos look fake to you? http://www.midrealm.org/kith/kith/Mc93.wmv Here is my instructor btw: http://www.midrealm.org/kith/kith/Sword1.wmv http://www.midrealm.org/kith/kith/spear201.mpg Here is an instructor explaining how to fight in close: http://www.midrealm.org/kith/kith/william1.wmv |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Aug 16 2004, 10:36 AM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,458 Joined: 22-March 03 From: I am a figment of my own imagination. Member No.: 4,302 |
Personally I'm amused anyone who hasn't ever had to fight for their life with a blade could claim they know drek all about actual martial combat...
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2004, 01:04 PM
Post
#95
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
I am too. The only reason I am alive is my training. I have the scars to prove it to. Of course. That is not a strong reason to look down on them. I have already pointed out that TRAINING is what makes a soldier good at killing. Not from getting himself put in a situation where he is under fire. By then hopefully it is his TRAINING that keeps him alive. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 16 2004, 02:36 PM
Post
#96
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Again it seems you don't even bother to read what I'm writing. What I actually wrote was:
Unless the majority of all ground troops never fired their rifle in training or another such situation, it's simply impossible that half of them would never have fired their rifle at all. That they hadn't fired for effect is basically the same thing. I've read this before in a number of sources. That's why I don't doubt it's true. However, the number of people who don't fire for effect has been dropping. Has to do largely with reflective training such as firing pop-up targets, and possibly even stuff like MILES. And again, this hasn't a whole damn lot to do with the main discussion. I've never said training isn't important. I've said plenty of times that training is very, very important. Just that not all training should be battlefield simulation.
Beats me. Sounds like they simply stood 500 meters away from each other and scared each other into making a peace treaty. However, it again seems you haven't read a damn thing I've posted. I didn't say these techniques were used to kill dozens of thousands of men. I didn't even mention techniques or wars when I made the comment on the deaths of dozens of thousands of men. If you wish to make a reply to that bit, please go back and read it again. I am getting a bit tired of quoting myself.
Okay, now that point I must have missed. Probably because you didn't mention it earlier. So, you'd define all those things "battlefield simulations"? With that broad a definition, as about 90% of soldier training would count as "battlefield simulations", heck yeah those would be the best way of training soldiers how to fight, and the cornerstone of modern military training. Add some PT and necessary classroom stuff which no doubt you have in SCA as well, and there you go. I'll just continue defining "battlefield simulation" my way, and we can stop arguing about it.
So you still maintain that no unarmed combat maneuvering can ever have any significant influence on the outcome of a sword fight?
And I didn't claim you did. What you did say was that top gun training, MILES and other simulations, advanced training which the US military employ, makes superior troops. Such training methods are only available to rich Western militaries. Of course now that you've cleared up your definition of simulations, I guess even Taleban does a lot of those. Thus that point is moot and we can indeed drop it.
Alright, if you don't trust me enough to tell you the truth about that one, we can just drop this entire conversation right now. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Aug 16 2004, 02:43 PM
Post
#97
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Back on the main discussion, one thing that may have been unclear in my statements about two-weapon fighting is that I'm not saying people can't use two long swords, or can't use them apparently effectively: I'm saying that, as a technique, it is in my experience significantly bested by either sword/shield or two-handed sword. You just get that much more protection or speed and power, while moving two swords around means they're not that much better than one sword.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2004, 03:01 PM
Post
#98
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 486 Joined: 4-August 04 From: Fomorian Wastes Member No.: 6,538 |
After wading through all of the posts I'm horrified by the way that almost none of you will except each others points, but nevertheless. There is one simple reason that most historical MAs don't focus on 2 long sword styles. Back then a sword cost a lot of money, MUCH MORE than it does today.
There is a traditional martial art that is practised today that covers armoured/unamoured fighting styles. It is, English, previously known as "School of Fense". Keeping it really simple, the style goes like this. Unarmed Combat - Brawling, Grappling, Throwing Armed Combat - Staves (1 and 2), Dagger&Sword, Sword, Sword&Shield, Polearm 2 swords (English Warblades in my case, only part of the 2nd side is sharp like a back sabre) Once you have learnt these or similar attack methods unarmoured you then start again wearing armour. After about 10 years you have learn again, but from horseback. Schools for this style can be found in Canada, USA and England. If you're wondering why you haven't heard of it there are 2 main reasons. One, it was banned in Britain 3 times before the 1600s. The second being that in the 1600s we worked out that no matter how good you are with a melee weapon it is a damn sight easier to kill someone with a gun. Launch into this anyway you want, I have spent 20 years practising several MA styles, eastern, western and african and enjoy many different ways of hitting people including LRP, Sealed Knot (English Civil War), Dark Ages (kinda like SCA), and wrestling/MA comps. Here is my 2bit piece of wisdom - The only truely effective fighting style is the one your opponent doesn't know. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 16 2004, 05:38 PM
Post
#99
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
That is correct statement on how I feel. But the word you use "significant" is subjective. You are awesome in your English language writing skills, I am not familiar with Finnish schooling, I compliment you on your ability to convey your messages. so I assume you know exactly what "significant" means. From the hundred or so street brawls I have been in and the thousands of hours in armor I have fought in my answer is a resounding NO. Unarmed maneuvers would not "significantly" change the outcome of a sword fight. You are welcome to disagree with me. And if you do not trust my extensive experience that is your option. I only caution that your own lack of exposure to "both" styles of fighting like I have does not put you in a position of authoritative judgment. I have fought kendo style with kendo gear, I have fought fencers with fencing gear, I have fought stage combat with live swords, I have done full contact stick fighting with no head gear, I have also been trained in Judo, American Boxing, muay Thai, and Wrestling, and even a little pankration. I am completely happy with my own opinion on what would work and what won't in fighting. Unarmed maneuvers would have a "small" to "negligable" impact on a sword fight where the opponent like the sca fighters have access to any possible weapon, armor type, and training technique ever created in history.
I will agree with you only on one condition. That you mean the other hand is doing something to add to the fight. What I mean is that you have a shield in your off hand or you are gripping a weapon that requires two hands to use. Both your hands are fighting instead of just one. I will strongly disagree with you if you are insinuating that a Hollywood style fighter that uses one sword in just one hand is equal in any way to a fighter using both hands in the fight as I have said here. That said, I have fought a one armed man. Pretty damn good with that one sword, but no real threat to a man with two arms using both of them in the battle.
I have already mentioned this. The average soldier back then was no more than a peasant levy armed with a weapon that could probably double as a farm implement. Armored knights unfortunately literally rode over them in battle, sometimes their own men even. What you say is a factor worth mentioning, but I think the largest factor was simply that not many people are ambidextrous enough to make the extra expense worth while. Also, heavy plate armor was relatively a late invention. By the time it was widely used gunpowder came along and made it obsolete. Given more time it is quite logical to assume that armored fighters would have used two weapons more as they found using shields redundant. Men thru history are always quick to lighten the load. If you are wearing plate armor that stops nearly all attacks there would be little need for a shield. And in fact they did discard the shields in favor of two handed heavier weapons able to crush armor. If the actual cut did not disable the fighter many times the force of the blow was enough to crush a rib or break a bone without armor penetration at all. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 16 2004, 05:46 PM
Post
#100
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I'd agree that having two swords instead of one used one-handed would usually be better. Even if you're just leaving that other hand next to you and only actually using the sword in your main hand, you're creating something else your opponent has to watch at the very least. Most of my work has been with katana, so I perhaps failed to consider the possibility of using a single one-handed sword and no shield. My estimation was based on two swords vs. one sword with two hands. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 14th May 2026 - 02:51 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.