But you aren't allowed to use many of the techniques because they aren't safe fo the people doing them, as you said earlier, and according to the SCA.org website there's also futher rules of honor that govern the fights, which would eliminate even more techniques. correct?

so the SCA isn't an authentic fighting school? they go teach their authentic schools then they teach SCA also?

Realistic simulations except for the honor based rules and the disallowed techniques you mentioned earlier. Right?

So you bash someone for "not knowing about the SCA" yet you have never been to his friends school and say for a fact that anyone from the SCA could kick their ass. Hmmmm. Double Standard.

No, I don;t think you are a liar. I think you believe what you are saying but that doesn't make it right. Much like someone who insists the moon is made of green cheese because that's what he was told from birth. He believes it that doesnt make him right.

And the website at: http://ic.net/~blues/wfstart.htm Which is the official site linkied to from sca.org about their combat portrays a wholly different attitude than rory here.

1. I never said it was a joke. It's entertainment.
2. I never said it was easy. Few seriously physical endeavors are.
3. What I did say is that it wasn't anymore comparable to genuine medieval combat than Lazer Tag is to SWAT training. Or for an even closer anology, the WWF compared to competitive wrestling.

Believe it or not, the SCA isn't some super secret society that only precious few individuals have ever heard of, let alone witnessed. The fact that you seem to think so many people are ignorant to what it is and what they do only testifies to your own ignorance on the subject. To be honest, I kind of doubt that you're even a member. You come across more as a sheltered armchair teenie bopper who, after being busted for talking out of his ass, has gone on the defensive in the most hardcore and irrational way possible. But that's just my opinion and I have nothing to back it up.

Yes and no. There is no striking below the knee. Why? I don't have an answer. Maybe back in the beginning when we were creating rules too many people were getting their feet and ankles broken? Maybe foot armor is just too damn hard to fabricate and articulate correctly? Do you think keeping that small target area off limits would significantly change the outcome of a real fight where any part of the body was a legal target? Think about how dumb you sound here. In practice we narrow and limit ourselves, in a real fight we are free to hit more area, hmmm.

We don't allow wrestling, we don't allow striking an unarmed opponent if he drops his sword, we don't allow hitting an opponent flat on his back, we don't allow hitting an opponent who is not aware of our presence, etc... Most of the things we don't allow would make our jobs of killing ten times easier. In that respect we are training tougher than what it would be in a real fight. Besides, I weigh 260 pounds, I wrestled in school, and I run 18 to 20 miles a week, I would love to wrestle.

For the record, and you can go back to this link and hear it from one of the best fighters alive, about 5 to 6 minutes into his lecture. When fighting, the best fighters the world over from nearly any martial sport have about three or four basic techniques that they use over and over in there fights for about 90% of the time or more. They know all the fancy smancy techniques, but they rarely if ever use them. If you knew the first thing about fighting you would not be in here making a fool of yourself trying to insinuate that all these BS techniques you allude to, but don't even know of yourself I should add.

I think you know exactly what I meant. Authentic, as in by some stupid book at one point in history, against one form of warfare, that was happening at one place on the planet. But historically authentic...flaws and all.

What techniques would you be referring to? I don't watch much "tv".

First I didn't say "anyone" from the sca could kick his friend's ass. That is a word you put in my mouth, a common theme on these boards apparantly. If you look back you will see I said the top fighters in the SCA can defeat the top fighters from any other school on earth. I said I would be happy to prove my point against any master you can produce in the Detroit area and I am not even one of the best. The fact is though, that after fighting some really ferocious athletes, from all walks of life and skill level, many from these schools we ar talking about, you pretty much know what to expect. Could you say the two or three hundred men that never fought SCA full contact that I have personally been their first instructor would allow me to make an informed opinion or not? You can't see how I am so confident. Understandable, you also don't know shit about fighting past what you have seen on tv from the sounds of you.

I am confused? What exactly is different from what this guy is saying from what I am saying? Maybe you could point that out for me. Did you read the disclaimer btw? Probably not. Did you even read the article at all? Probably not. Here is the disclaimer:

"The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and may not reflect the policies of the Society for Creative Anachronism"

Your exact words were "It's a total joke". Pretty rude of you to disrespect what I do. Pretty cowardly of you to sit on your ass behind a computer screen somewhere and think you are cool.

Yeah you did say that, and you are full of shit too. You don't know the first thing about medieval combat, you don't know the first thing about SCA combat, you are talking out the side of your mouth. What is your point? SWAT uses simulators to train with. They also use firing ranges. I would agree with you btw if you had said any martial art not using full contact is comparable to lazer tag and SWAT training. basically what you are saying is that full contact kickboxers who uses gloves are no more genuine prize fighters than Lazer tag players are to SWAT officers. Do you see how ridiculous your comparison is?

No, there are thousands of fighters across the world. What gave you the idea anyone thinks it is a secret group? The fact I think so many people are ignorant on the subject is a testament to the fact that so many people like you are ignorant. All I see you doing is trolling these boards inserting your smart mouthed comments here and there without adding anything intelligent. You think you know something, but in reality you don't know jack shit. You are probably some chubby little nerd that can't get a date so spends his time trolling the boards on mummies computer, that is how you act anyway.

Oh, and I already said I am not a "current" member of the SCA. I still practice, I still fight. Membership is not a requirement for participation. And you think I have been busted on any point in this thread? Name it please and I will set it straight. Huh, you are funny, you have an opinion, but that's it. And it is certainly not based in knowledge, that is abundantly obvious. Think I am a sheltered teenie talking out my ass? Bring that smack to MoTown, I am available nights and weekends, son.

What you can and can't do personally is irrelevant. I participate in Quest, which is a fairly damn unrealistic LARP, but I can fight fairly well and am at least passably athletic (all because of things unrelated to Quest). Does that mean that Quest is a great way to learn to fight?

~J

The's pretty much the exact resposne expected from someone that is exactly what he described, whether you are or not. That pretty much will reinforce his position and opinion of you.

And Rory, while complaining ohters pre twsiting words and putting words in your mouth you do the exact same thing to others. Oto, Kettle is calling for you on line 2.

First I never said anything about changing the outcome of a fight, I simply asked if there were some illegal techniques. Then YOU bring up changing the outcome of a fight and say how stupid it sounds. If it sounds so stupid you shouldn't have brought it up, because I didn't bring it up you did. First you draw a conclusion for me, then you attack it. You're doing great arguing with yourself!

Then we get to dunny stuff like:

I dont watch TV pretty much at all, nor did I even mention TV, again something introdiced entirely by you. And to answer the "what techniques" I'll reply with your own quotes from your own post:

There, you did a great job of answering your own question.

Er, but all of the things you listed are the situations where it is easier to make a kill!

So it's easier to score a kill if the opponent is NOT on his back, and aware of your presence? I thought it would be far easier to kill someone if he was flat on his back and didn't know you were there. In fact, I'd think that would be the FAR preferred scenario!

Where did that come from? was that mentioned? what does that have to do with anything?

So now you tell me I know nothing about fighting (which I don't think I HAVE claimed to knwo anything about fighting, but that's okay...) then again bring up the techniques that I havent listed, but that's okay because you listed a few of them as I have quoted above... please, feel free to use your own quotes.

Okay then I won't put any words anywhere, please provide links that the world's top fencers and hand to hand combatabts are all SCA members, because if it was a siimple matter for the olympic fencing titles to be snagged by SCA members surely there is some documentation of this. After all, SCA members can beat them.

I dont know what color the boathouse is, but the point is neither did he.

Reread that. If you're going to argue with him, it works better when you do something other than restate his words and act like he said the opposite.

On this, Jarnac would disagree with you.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/DOTC.htm

Attacking the lower legs is one of the best ways to reduce an opponents fighting ability. The more difficult it is for your opponent to move, the greater control you have over the fight. If your opponent can't stand, so much the better. Even against armored opponents, attacking the legs can be devastating to balance. In Shadowrun terms, huge TN penalities either way.

Of course, any form of full contact sparing is important when training to fight. At the every least, it teaches one how to take a hit without losing focus, which is very important. It usually improves reaction as well. Depending on the quality of the opposition, it can also provide countless other benefits. SCA combat is no exception. However, sparing doesn't teach you how to kill. If it did, most people who spar would die.
Such safety measures do adversely effect combat. People who consistently train with certain areas off limits to attack tend to neglect defense in those areas, for example. It is important to know the consequences of safety regulations and understand what combat would be like without them.

Oh, and if anyone wants to be a munchkin using duel wield rules, a strength 10 Troll Cybercombat Adept with paired dikoted spurs is insane. 16S with 16 dice.
But, he wouldn't be a sword saint. The off-hand weapon really doesn't matter because it only contributes dice, not damage. But, I would presume that paired two-handed weapons result in double TN penalities

Okay yeah, that was entirely my fault. I misread what he said.

That's cool. It's not like I am going to hurt him if he takes me up on it...much. I meant he can put some armor on and show this sheltered teenie how a real experienced tough guy like he is does things. I am just making myself available. We can play some shadowrun afterwards. That offer is open for anyone out there who wans to step up to the plate. I've been down thru there with alot of them, powerlifters, college football players, shot putters, and hockey players, martial artists, bikers, lots of Marines lots of different folks.

I don't care if you said anything about changing the outcome of a fight or not, you implied it with your line of questioning. If you wish the reader to draw a different conclusion I guess you should start saying exactly what you mean. Stop trying to nit pick everything I say as well and add evidence to whatever your claim is instead of wrangling with words. What was the point in asking about the few things that are not allowed in SCA combat if it was not meant to imply that these couple of limits would change the outcome of a real fight? As if to say "eureka" the SCA is not realistic because they don't allow you to _________ (fill in mamby pamby little reason, ad nauseum, blah, blah, blah). And before you start in on attacking the SCA system of combat simulation let's not ignore that no training system flawlessly mimics actual combat, but none in my and alot of very knowledgable other people's opinions, come close in reproducing the realism of heavy combat like the SCA does.

You made an attack on the safety rules in the SCA to reinforce your position? that the SCA can't produce the best heavy weapons fighters on earth. Your drivel has bored me so much I hardly even recognize what you have been saying, nor do I think you even know what you are saying. You seem to be coming up with tid bits here and there with no cohesion to your overall argument as we debate. A sign that you know very little about the subject you are so opinionated on.

What part of this statement is too deep for you not to understand? "Most of the things we don't allow would make our jobs of killing ten times easier." I'll break it down for you. Most of the things we don't allow, ie..hitting someone with his back turned, hitting someone before the referee gives the signal, hitting someone who is prone, hitting a weaponless opponent, get this part? Most of the things we DO NOT ALLOW.....would make our jobs of killing 10 times easier. ie, if we could strike a man's shins, if we could strike a man with his back to us, if we could strike a disarmed opponent, etc.. our job of killing WOULD BE 10 times easier. Does this make sense to you now? Do you think that if you were to train to hit a smaller target in practice then have a larger target available in the real fight that it would be easier or harder for you to hit the target? I know that is a tough one for a guy like you...practice hitting a smaller target area in training...get a bigger target area in the real thing. Do you think you will score more or less hits in real battle. Can you answer that? Better. Can you answer it with anything that makes sense?

The fact is that all the little tricks in the world rarely get used and like Sir brannos says they are sometimes hard to remember, if you are the type of fighter who gives a crap in the first place that is. In any fighting sport only a few basic techniques are used 99.99% of the time. Maybe 4 or 5 techniques is all anyone nees to know to be a winner. The flying back flip loop the loop double spinning sidesnap roundhouse kick might look cool on film, but a plain old front kick gets used infinitely more. Get my point? Showing that the SCA does not allow a few minor techniques does not reduce the level of combat readiness of those who train in heavy armored fighting techniques in the SCA. I would rather see a good explanation as to why full contact and ALL weapon combinations are not utilized in those other so called historically authentic fighting schools.

That was blatantly obvious from your first post, kid.

If you read closely at what I am saying you will find that I am well aware of this. As it pertains to being able to fight in a real battle where that target location would be opened up it has little to do with the outcome. Training with a reduced size target will not likely detract from your fighting ability in the real battle, in fact it would make it even easier to kill your opponent if a larger profile became fair game. Don't you agree. The Vikings you refer to had alot of hits in the shoulder and head areas as well. This was probably a sign of shield usage and lack of the use of leg greaves more than anything else.

I was stationed at Camp lejuene, why do you ask? Were you a Marine as well? I went to boot camp at mcrd San Diego, went to froc (Field Radio Operator's Course) at 29 Palms, Was stationed at Camp Lejuene in a 105mm artillery battalion, vounteered for Recon, went to Amphibious reconaisance School in Quantico. Etc... I traveled half way around the world and back, got into SCA fighting, drank alot of beer, chased alot of women, it was a great experience. Where were you stationed?

Never heard of it. Is this just some dumb ass shit you are making up? There is alot of Marine bases. I have never even heard of Hereford. I can tell you about Mount Mother f$%$er though.

And this is supposed to mean what? I was not a Marine? Pretty pathetic if this is the best you can do. And quite silly. Why would you even jump to that conclusion and make an ass of yourself? You don't mind wearing egg on your face apparently?

INteresting article, I had intended to read it fully. You miss my point though. I never said that attacking below the knee is not a good fighting tactic. I have simply said that limiting the target area just a little bit in practice will make you more accurate. It should be much easier to take an opponent down in a real fight once the entire body is open for attack. Don't you agree?

This is why we devote a large amount of training to fight with our legs crippled. From the knee and above is a much harder target to hit, but it happens enough that we devote training to bettering ourselves to fighting while hamstrung.

That defeats everything the Romans and Greeks have taught us about training armies. Sparring does teach you how to kill. That is the basic purpose of training with wooden weapons. It is ridiculous to think most people would die in training.

This is perhaps the best point made so far. Were it up to me I would open the lower legs to attacks and force leg greaves to be worn as well as foot armor. I am just one guy though. This point is certainly nothing to suddenly say ah ha! over though. i'm not convinced it would be that significant a deal. Fully armored opponents would have the lower leg armored to counter this. And the example you used is fencing. It is not full armored combat. My statement still stands that the SCA has produced the best modern fighters for heavy combat alive today. Even without lower leg shots, no other school or group can offer all the benefits to warfare the SCA can.

Well, hell, why are you practicing with such a large target area? You should practice hitting a golf-ball-sized spot on their lower back, then when you get into actual duals you'll be unstoppable.

The Hereford thing is a reference to the movie Ronin.

At home I do. I have markered off exact target areas to train with. I like the colored marks so my sword shows up better in high speed smoker drills. I also have a softball suspended from an arbor that is anchored to the ground which I practice thrusting at with polearms. It does help.

Pffft, that figures. That is where most of these guys get there information I think.

Flaming is making an attack twards a person instead of responding to their argument. There is a difference between the person and what they are saying.

No problem, I work in a jail, and about half out inmates are here for the exact same reason, it seems common.

No, I do NOT question your honest, and honor is a code of concept never even directly though about bu 99.99% (or more) of the world. I don't even know what you consider "honor" in this context. I specifically said that I believe that you believe you are telling the truth. That doesn't mean that I believe you are right, just that I acknowledge that you believe you are right. I don;t think you're being purposefully deceptive.

No, because you are mispercieving my view, I never said you were lying.

I dont think anyone here has attacked your character. We have a problem with some wholly grandiose and unrealistic statements you are making. We aren't making attacks on you personally. I can provide examples if you wish.

After reading back on the thread I don't think any of the statements above were really character attacks at all, although that's what you seem to be taking them as.

If someone cares to claim an insult that wasn't offered, I'm usually happy to offer it.

That being said, the idea of "weakling women" (or anyone else you could put the term "weakling" to) fighting effectively with two the-longer-the-better swords is still something that all of my experience would lead me to believe is ridiculous. I'd forgotten about that claim. Having cooled off some, I've relocated it to "exaggeration" rather than "lying". My above comment about people who claim insults I haven't offered still stands.

The fact that, as it turned out, we were talking about two different things when we were arguing over two-sword vs. one-sword (one sword held in one hand vs. one held in two hands) didn't exactly promote mutual understanding either.

And yes, I'm underrepresenting my disagreement with him on this subject in an attempt at detente.

~J

If you feel I was referring to you then that is your problem. I thought you and I had pretty much agreed on the same thing. musashi clearly stated to train with two long swords and you agreed. I found more video links to my fighting style and it clearly shows many fighters using two swords quite well for armored fighting purposes. I have already been whacked by a kendo martial artist enough to know that my superior upper body strength is not much of an advantage in swinging a boken. With no armor to protect me I will readily admit defeat to the superior skill with these faster weapons styles. With armor the fencer or kendo fighter is dead because he has never trained that way. Just like I am dead if I take my armor off and try to go against one of you. Do you agree?

OK, I will try to keep that definition in mind. Is there anything in particular that I have said you don't like? I will try and rephrase my answer if there is. I am just tired of constant insinuations is all. If you read back, I didn't even feel you were directing your comments to me and didn't respond to you until you started attacking my sport with insinuations. And you did jump to a conclusion over this boat house thing that turned out to be some movie joke. You don't have to directly call me a liar to convey the implication.

I hope you are not a guard. Unless I were a homo I do not think I could stomach having grown men bend over and spread their ass cheeks in my face all day. And I have spent my share of time in jail, and prison. I was a guest of the state of North Carolina for a few years back when I was a mean bastard.

Sure, but then instead of neutral and just leaving it at saying you feel I "believe" everything I am writing you then concoct imagry of someone that would obviously be considered stupid by saying people were taught that the moon is made of cheese. See my point here? As if my points are so outlandish it is like believing the moon is made of cheese. You are clever with your words and careful with the rules of the thread to get your little digs in?, I am just a high school drop out, I am blunt and to the point. It is a clash of personality. And if you are not questioning my honesty why would you be so quick to jump to the conclusion I did not know the color of some boat house? And then it turn out to be just some movie thing. Doesn't really fit with what you are now saying.

The only grandiose statement I have made that I am aware of is that I would fight someone's whole school without being touched, simultaneously. One at a time I am confident I can do it, because I have done it hundreds of times with new fighters and others who have not had alot of experience with full contact fighting. Everything else I have posted I can explain logically. If you think there is some wild claim I have made you are not comfortable with please do provide an example for and I will go into detail as best I am able.

I was only there for two weeks. Never made it to Oceanside either. The two most violent places in America one year per capita was #1 Oceanside, CA, and #2 Jacksonville, NC. Coincidence that our two largest Marine Corps bases are just outside those two towns, huh? My theory is that is not the Marines though as much as it is the locals preying on them and the willingness for Marines to fight why you had more chances of being a crime victim in those two places than anywhere else?

Musashi disagreed with you apparently. He claimed it was easy to wield two long swords and reccomended you train with them. So not sure what your disagreement could be? That you can't use two long swords? Did you look at any of the footage from the new video links I found? I didn't even know our group had those videos until one of the guys told me at last fight practice.

And I take directly calling me a liar and insinuating it the same. I don't care to go back and read thru what was said, I have dropped it from my thoughts for the most part as I assumed it was pretty much at rest until you just mentioned you are holding something back that you disagree with me on?

According to tradition, Musashi wielded a katana and a wakizashi, not two katanas. In fact, he speaks out against relying exclusivly on long or short swords in the Wind Book.

http://www.samurai.com/5rings/

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~priordan/gorinosh.html

As for the Roman army, their primary advantage was discipline, not skill. Their strong formations made peronal combat skills pointless. This is clearly seen when in situations where they were forced to fight on terain where their formations formations were unusable. Regimented training with wooden swords is great for teaching basic attacks and defenses and making them second nature. Free sparing with wooden swords is great for teaching how to sparing bouts using wooden swords. As I said, sparing is important in that it prepares one to continue fighting after being hit and can teach many subtle things about body positionng and distancing. However, it must be regimented and carefully monitered, especialy early on, otherwise the trainees will devolp many bad habbits from exploiting their safety gear. Neither free sparing or regimented training teaches how to kill. The former teaches motions capibly of killing and the latter usualy does, as well. But, their are sublties there are tings that simply can't be reproduces. Fighting on one leg can't adaquatly prepare you to have the spiked end of a warhammer driven through the back of your knee and stabbing dummies can't prepare you to drive a blade through someone's gut and push him away with your shield before his can use the last of his strength to drive his blade into your neck.

I have no doubt that any SCA fighter could destroy me in SCA combat. I'm argueing practical theory and strategy, not the superiority of one style over the other. The truth is that their is no such thing as a superior style, only superior warriors and suppior warriors aren't necessarilary the ones with the best skills. In a real battle, skill means little, it is just one small advantage out of many potential advantages and disadvantages. Winning is first about maximizing advantages and minimizing disadvanages and then about exploiting the enemy's disadvantages with your advantages, wihile preventing the enemy from doing the same.
Musashi knew this. It is apparent from how he writes about strategy in the Book of Five Rings and from accounts of his duels.
In sport, fitness and skill are most important. In combat, strategy, deception, awareness are far more important. No sport translates into combat. The fact the neither participant is activly trying to kill the other makes it completly different from combat. Rules and safety gear only compound this. The rules become advantages and disadvantages to exploit. If the rules change, the sportsman isn't prepared to exploit the new rules, you agree. Musashi teaches to be prepared to exploit any set of advantages and disadvantages. Getting back to the original topic of conversation, fighting with pared weapons of the same length creates disadvantages that an experienced warrior will exploit.
With swords on on the street there's also the issue of concelability. When a cop asks "Is that a sword under your jacket or are you just happy to see me?", 'tis best to be able to honesty affirm the latter.

Yep, as far as the thread topic goes the two of us have come to consensus. I'm just pointing out why some of us may be reacting to you with such hostility. I didn't particularly think that the comment was or was not directed at me, I'm just pointing out that (like my earlier comment, mind you, I do realize) it's not going to reduce the adversarial feel of the thread.

And if you check, I didn't jump on you about the boathouse thing, I actually objected to BitBasher apparently deciding that you didn't know after three minutes. Turns out it was a movie reference.

Also, "this subject" in terms of my disagreement is the effectiveness of SCA as actual combat training, but I've realized that whether you're right or whether you're wrong, it's not important to me unless I either end up having to fight you or having you fight for me for whatever bizarre reason

~J

Ummmm... I wasn't referring to anything. I was directly quoting the movie in reply. I'm a movie buff. I nearly always reply the next line anytime someone quotes a movie.

But that's not the next line... unless you're quoting Gregor's repeating it back to Sam.

This is from the link you provided. apparently musashi says to train with a long sword in both hands....wow, just like sca fighters do. Amazing isn't it?

No matter how you look at it an individual fighter should use weapons that fit his own strength. We learn to walk with two arms and two legs. Our center of balance is set in the middle because we are symmetrical beings for the most part. Holding a sword in one of your hands throws this balance out of whack, holding a long sword in one hand and a short sword in the other helps correct the inbalance, but it is holding two equal length weapons that returns balance to the body. In my opinion, anything else is unnatural. Thru training and use you can force your body to compensate, but it will always be what it is, a forced compensation. That is my opinion from thousands of hours of wielding a sword. The reader can take it for what he wants.

"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; as you become accustomed to the bow so your pull will become stronger. When you become used to wielding the long sword, you will gain the power of the Way and wield the sword well."

That is why the SCA combat style is so superior. The SCA fighter wears the exact same armor he would fight in, carries a weapon weighing the exact same amount as the weapon he would be using, and trains full speed exactly as he would in real combat. The other training methods that use unrealistically light weapons, padded swords that wobble and bend when you swing them, or do not allow full contact hitting can't come close to the level of realism the SCA has in recreating combat. The only difference in SCA combat and real combat is that the swords are made of wood, the arrows are blunted, and there are a few minor rules for safety (which every training style ever developed has).

What you just said does not make much sense. Ancient armies did conditioning exercises which included chopping a pell with a heavier sword and other exercises to build strength and endurance. They did discipline exercises which includes close order drilling and other things to get them to work as a unit. And they did sparring with wooden weapons to teach them how to kill. Ancient soldiers did learn how to kill from fighting for real. They all received training from someone or went on to design their own weapons and or fighting techniques. It is not reasonable to believe that killing is only learned from battle. I have already pointed out that our modern soldiers are able to go into battle where artillery and airpower are not a factor and make staggering kill ratios against long time combat veterans using nothing but small arms and the training they have received. Skills they learned thru non lethal training techniques. The same principle applied to any successful army back then. You trained as realistically as you were able so that when the time came to fight you already knew how to go thru the motions. That said, this is same flaw in training is applied to ALL martial arts equally. I am just pointing out you are wrong in that training is exactly what makes you a better swordsman. Whether it be SCA training or kendo training it is all the same. The real and only question is how close to real combat does one way of learning expose the student to when examining which produces the best swordsmen possible.

Avoiding to train from the hamstrung position would also ignore that you would ever find yourself in that position. There are alot more injuries that can bring you down than having your knee blown out by a warhammer. Are you suggesting to ignore that training or to come to fighter practice the day after you have been in a horrible car accident, so you can see how it feels to fight while you are in great pain so you will be adequately prepared just in case you ever got your leg amputated in battle? That really does not mean the training system used by the SCA is not the best system possible does it?

Ok, I am defending my style of training. But I am also disagreeing with some of your conclusions on training in general as well.

Like this statement for example. There is superior fighting styles, for example if I had to chose who my opponent was going to be it would not be a boxer who has fought in the ring, I would rather fight the guy who just shadow boxed for training. Get my point? They are both legitimate training methods, but a boxer who actually spars with a live opponent will be better trained fro fighting.

It sounds as if you are confusing massed warfare and combat. In single combat fitness and skill are just as important to the individual fighter. It would be a slaughter if a thousand kendo artists met a thousand SCA fighters in a full armored battle. Skill does have alot to do with it. Vice versa, it would be just as bloody a slaughter if the battle was fought unarmored, but with different results. I wonder if anyone gets this idea? Armor is the key. And it doesn't make any individual any better or worse "potentially" than the other. That is not an argument I would engage in. Either side can be trained in the other's way of fighting. After that it would come down to strength, speed, flexibility, reaction, and desire of the individual.

No, I disagree. Treating the fight realistically or not is a mental state of mind. Competition from tournaments promote a very real desire to excel. Not only does a martial art need realistic training methods to be effective, but it needs competition to push it's students to higher levels of ability. There are tens of thousands of fighters in the SCA, it is a large organization and covers this nicely. Other more obscure schools do not have the advantage of numbers. Other schools do not even have the advantage of competitions at all. The ancients had survival as a motivator and competitions. The Romans had problems with troops refusing to wear bulky body armor and casualty rates climbed when fighting the Vandals, Visigoths, and others. Discipline was not uniformly enforced. This just shows that even life and death motivation is not enough to maintain fighting ability. Competition, espre de corps, and unit pride went alot further.

A separate point you seem to be trying to make here is that changing the rules of the encounter will have an impact on the outcome of the fight by virtue of having no training in the new rules. This is true, it depends on how restrictive your rules were and how radical a difference the new ones are. At one point face thrusts were not allowed in SCA fighting, when they were suddenly allowed one day there was no sudden change in who was winning fights and who was not. It apparently had little to do with the outcome of fighting. In the case of the SCA restrictions, not allowing striking below the knee makes it harder to attack the legs. In the real thing where any shot would count it would be much easier to make those shots. In that case training was tougher than reality. This is what many tank commanders said about fighting the Iraqis. Our training methods in Fort Hood are much tougher than the actual war is.

Musashi as I have pointed out also said to train with a long sword in each hand. And fighting with paired weapons of the same length creates much bigger advantages than disadvantages that an experienced warrior will exploit as well.

I have pointed this out as well, but it is sadly ignored, so is the long tradition of the Thais.

I am impressed. I wouldn't think that anyone not directly involved in the debate would be paying this close of attention. The list is not complete on the points made, but it is a wonderful list. Thank you for making it. I am pressed for time, but just a few more points:

13) Competition is good for honing and applying learned martial skills, and awards and ranks help provide the motivation to excel
14) Learning your techniques facing the widest possible variety of opposing weapons combinations and usage techniques is more realistic
15) Learning your techniques facing the widest possible variety of worn armors is more realistic for prepared battle encounters, but not necessarily for unprepared or civil encounters
16) Training full contact in single combat and large scale melees and wars rounds out a fighters skills as it applies to a much wider range of fighting conditions
17) There is no substitute for actual combat regardless of the method used for training, but matching realism as closely as safely possible is the best way to produce superior fighters able to engage in warfare effectively
18) Striking with precision at a smaller target in training will decrease the difficulty of scoring a hit when a larger target becomes available

This is true. I pointed this out in the beginning. I would add that humans are getting stronger and faster though. Not to mention there are alot more of us and we have access to far more information than any of the ancients did. In short we have alot of decided advantages that can produce better fighters. The motivation in general is lost I agree, but I am questioning if it is a factor in those who are interested in learning to fight. Certainly from those of us that do well there is no lack of motivation. And the growing appeal is a good sign. More competition is good and will drive the quality of fighting upwards even more. Real world jobs and lack of employment from fighting does dampen dedication as you say though, most definitely.

Which is something I could not have known since I watch very little cinema and have never seen the movie ronin, or even ever heard of it until now.

Nice little joke. Should I actually see it? I probably will now, just because it was used on me.

Nobody is twisting your arm. Beat it if you don't have anything to add to the discussion. I am sure alot of us could care less. I certainly don't. You have a good point though. The question I asked was can I use two long weapons in combat? I am not going for munchkinism you guys think is so terrible. I don't care if the extra katana is hard to conceal or not. And to get the same bonus I could use a butter knife according to the rules. I can even increase my range by choosing a more concealable morning star which is a one handed weapon and a whip as the secondary weapon to gain the extra reach advantage. That combination is "legal" according to the list. Anyone want to argue that it is easier to use two whips than two long swords? Or that a whip is useless for fighting in close? It is just a character concept. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, I did appreciate the joke! Great timing. It fit perfectly. And I just went to Blockbuster to rent the video. I found a couple others as well since I am going to watch a little tv. I like movies and all, I just don't spend much time watching them.

That is cool for Musashi. I want to stick with my two long blades I have been training with. Doesn't mean I am any worse of a fighter than somebody else that uses any other weapon combination. I don't see Wakizashi listed either though. If it is a "sword" it is apparantly impossible to wield in the off hand. Just don't ask me to define "off hand" for an ambidextrous character.

Yes you are correct.

As one version of the legend goes he met his nemesis Kojiro Sasaki on an island to fight a dual. While he waited for Sasaki to arrive he carved a bokken from a boat oar and then used it to kill Sasaki in the dual. There are lots of similar stories. They say Musashi could remove limbs with bokken.

As a side note, there is a modern bokken design called the Musashi Trainer that is about as thick as a base ball bat. Used for suburi its sopposed to build strength, but not just because its hard to swing. It wears you out faster so that you stop using your muscles and start cutting with proper technique.

[EDIT] For those unfamiliar with the principles of japanese sword- powerful cuts come from your center and its relationship to the earth, not your upperbody strength. If done properly you shouldn't need to be a 300 pound brute to cut someone in half- thats what the rediculously sharp blade is for... You can see the contrast with western broad sword technique...)

[EDIT2] (i really need to think before i submit... ) Thats also a technical reason why it would be insanely difficult to weild a katana effectively in each hand. Musashi might have been able to do it, but then he is regarded as the greatest swordsman in Japanese history...

That's pretty misleading. Japanese swords were designed, more or less, to cut bare flesh, and to cut harder objects with excellent form. Any sort of significant angle on the blade when it hits something hard will destroy it, but that doesn't mean that wood is "better" than the metal, just more versatile.

~J

Funny how we keep breaking records all the time since we have actually started recording them, but the men in the old tales grow taller and taller down the line.

I should have italisized the might. Although he touted the benefits of such training its pretty unlikely that he ever used two katana in an actually dual.

In fact, I think historically speaking the katana and wakazashi were used individually as the situation required (mostly depending on maai- the distance between you and your opponent and weather you were indoors or out). Samurai wore two swords so they could be prepared for different situations, and it was vouge. Styles like Nitoichi ryu and Yagu ryu developed as a novelty, and their techniques were closely guarded secrets. Those who practiced those styles were a rare exception and a small elite.

Actualy, the differiential hardening used in Japanese blades makes them far more durable than european blades. Because the vast majority of the blade is left soft springy it won't break during a sloppy cut. It will bend, certainly, but it can still be used and later repaired.


Musashi used a Bokken against Sasaki to defeat his reach advantage. Musashi chose the oar because it was longer than Sasaki's nodachi.