Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [E_Rapier] Re: New Blade Rules

Expand Messages
  • Aaron Miedema
    I agree with you Albrecht and that authorization is one of the pre-emptive forms of callibration enforcement, but it is not perfect. Authorization are not
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 21, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with you Albrecht and that authorization is one of the pre-emptive
      forms of callibration enforcement, but it is not perfect. Authorization
      are not tied to particular weapon, and so one may authorize with a weapon
      that is less of an issue and then move up to something meatier. And I'm
      not saying that everyone is going to do this, but I suspect that one or two
      cases of serious arm or hand injury might make things difficult for the
      group of us as a whole. Would it were not so, it is because of insurance
      policies that we have to think about the accidents and not the usual
      circumstances.

      Now, of course if the all of you think that cut and thrust armour can
      protect the arm and hand to a reasonable degree against one of these
      Medieval type swords. fine. I'll conceed. I'll still armour up, but
      that'll just be my thing. =)

      I'm hardly in a panic over this, the Cut and Thrust project is small and
      fairly easily policed right now, but, it won't necessarily stay that way.
      But, even now peope have started asking me questions about the potentiality
      of using such weapons.

      On a similar vein, I did some testing last night. My scale was an old
      mechanical one so the weights cannot be guaranteed as perfect, but they do
      give a ball park. Clamping the sword/blade to a table surface so it can
      only move from the shoulder of the tang downward toward the tip. The,
      using a 1" wide yard stick I can measure the distance the weight is from
      the tip and the depression of the blade by the weight. The results of last
      nights testing.
      Hanwei Practical Viking moved 7/8". So worthy of refining the
      weight to get a more accurate reading.
      35" Zamarrano Blade moved 1 3/4". Quite surprising that one, I
      would have thought it would be less. But it passes by a wide margin even
      with the imperfect weight I think.

      I suspect there is a new kitchen scale in my future so I can start merrily
      bending swords to satisfy my curiousity. I'm also interested in just
      examining the subject of variance, for example Hanwei has been known to
      manufacture products that are highly unpredictable in character of steel.
      Any thoughts on how this might be addressed?

      Archibald.

      On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:53 PM, EVE HARRIS <evedave1@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > Greetings!
      >
      > Hopefully, if the person is authorized is C&T, the blow will be
      > sufficiently controlled as to not do any real damage, even with the heavier
      > blade. I know that's no guarantee that excessive blows won't be thrown, but
      > I think it's a lot easier to get into the excessive area with a heavier
      > blade, so greater control has to be exercised. That's one of the reasons
      > that C&T is an advanced authorization and a person has to demonstrate a
      > high level of control during the authorization process. Just one excessive
      > blow during the authorization process and it's authorization over. So, the
      > issue is not with the heavier blade, but the fencer's ability to control
      > that blade. We should not be throwing edge cuts anywhere near full force.
      >
      > Lets take a quick look at the rules:
      >
      > 4.0
      > ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF BLOWS
      > A. In judging blows,
      > all fighters are presumed to be wearing common civil attire of the period,
      > not
      > armour.
      > B. Tourneys may be
      > held which define areas of the body as if armoured, and to what degree, so
      > long
      > as all
      > the participants are
      > made aware of these special conditions prior to the start of combat.
      > C. In rapier combat,
      > blows will be counted as though they were struck with a real blade,
      > extremely
      > sharp on
      > point and edge. Any
      > blow that would have penetrated the skin shall be counted a good blow. Any
      > blow
      > that strikes a mask,
      > helm or gorget shall be counted as though it struck flesh.
      >
      >
      > 3.0 USE OF WEAPONS
      > AND PARRYING DEVICES
      > A. Valid Blows are struck by:
      > thrusting with the point of the blade (thrust); sliding the edge of the
      > blade
      > by
      > drawing (draw cut); sliding the
      > edge of the blade by pushing (push cut); or placing the tip of the blade
      > upon and then drawing it across
      > an opponent (tip cut). Cut and thrust rapier also includes the use of
      > percussive cuts as a valid blow.
      > Percussive cuts must always be delivered with sufficient control so as
      > not to injure the opponent while
      > still delivering the necessary impact for a valid cut.
      >
      > 5. EXCESSIVE IMPACT: Combat in
      > the Society poses risks to the participant. This recognition, however,
      > does not excuse fighters from
      > exercising control of their techniques. If a fighter throws blows which
      > force their opponent to retire
      > from the field, from a real injury (even one which only causes brief
      > incapacitation), the marshal
      > responsible for the field shall take such steps as are appropriate to stop
      > the
      > problem from recurring. This
      > applies to all forms of rapier combat.
      >
      > So, it does not take a lot of force to do a good blow in our game, even
      > with an edge cut. Percussive cuts have an extra proviso emphasizing
      > control. If you hit someone hard enough that they have to leave the list,
      > you're in trouble. So, again, the emphasis is on the fencers to show proper
      > control.
      >
      > Also, if you are concerned about a paticular blade, you can up armour
      > whatever bits of you you want and you can suggest the same to your
      > opponent, as long as you can still call blows through it. Stuff happens,
      > though at the level of control people authorized in C&T should have, it
      > should happen a heck of a lot less often.
      >
      > So, to conclude, it's not the blade it's the fencer. If you don't think
      > you can safely strike someone with a particular blade, then don't use it,
      > even if it passes the flex test. If you are not confident someone can
      > strike you safely with a particular blade, then ask them to use something
      > else, or don't fight them.
      >
      > Yours in Service
      >
      > Albrecht
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Aaron Miedema <govianus@...>
      > To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 5:55:21 PM
      > Subject: Re: [E_Rapier] Re: New Blade Rules
      >
      >
      > Hi Thore...
      >
      > It's not the flex of which I'm speaking, I'm not concerned about that.
      > What I'm talking about are hits delivered with the edge, which can happen
      > by accident in Heavy Rapier and is kind of the point in cut and thrust
      > (pardon the pun =) ). And these weapons are from manufacturers that are
      > likely approved, so for example, a Hanwei Practical Viking. or a Practical
      > Norman, or a practical Bastard, or an Albion, or a tinker-pierce. These
      > weapons may pass the flex test--although I have not yet tested any of them,
      > but I will so soon, just to give me a sence of what is proper flex.
      >
      > I just am leary about what can potentially happen if any of these weapons
      > deliver a precussive cut to a hand or a forearm against Cut and Thrust
      > mimimum Armour.
      >
      > Archibald.
      >
      > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Thor�� <toray1627@...> wrote:
      >
      > > **
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > The big concern in An Tir is home made blades (for example, blades ground
      > > down from something else that flexes well enough but isn't sword steel).
      > > We've decided to go with society's flex rule for commercial blades (we'll
      > > provide a list of manufacturers allowed, but not specific blades from
      > those
      > > manufacturers), but blades from very small smithies and home made blades
      > > are banned whether they pass the flex test or not.
      > >
      > > Cheers,
      > > Thor� de Bethune
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Miedema <govianus@...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I've been pondering this new rule for a bit. And I understand and
      > applaud
      > > > the administrative simplicity of it, I wonder if there has been more
      > than
      > > > one issue opend by the change. People may have already considered this
      > > and
      > > > developed policy on this, but, I am contemplating what is inherently
      > > > visible in the rule itself.
      > > >
      > > > This rule is guaged for Heavy Rapier by measuring flexbility, and this
      > is
      > > > needed. It is also guaged to permit the growing interest in longswords
      > > and
      > > > other two handed weapons, and because of this, redefinition was
      > required.
      > > >
      > > > However, this guage does not consider the precussive cut potential of
      > > these
      > > > weapons. For example, an Albion Meyer Longsword is likely to pass the
      > > flex
      > > > test defined by the rules, but, I know from my experience, outside the
      > > > SCA, that I'd be leary of facing off against one without fairly
      > > significant
      > > > additions to C and T minimum armour (namely Guants and Padding on the
      > > > arms). I would suggest that these heavier weapons present the
      > > > possibility of having to file a significant number of injury reports.
      > > >
      > > > There is also a potential issue with the weapons that can be used in
      > > Heavy
      > > > Rapier. I have already had questions asked about the validity of a
      > Hanwei
      > > > Practical Norman Sword for use in both C and T and Heavy Rapier. Two
      > > > handed weapons in Heavy Rapier are much easier to keep with the tip in
      > > line
      > > > and are likely of less concern. But, one handed weapons that are
      > pre-16th
      > > > C reproductions are likely to have a balance point further forward than
      > > > Rapiers and likely to more of a tendency to move in a more circular
      > > > fashion, leading to the potential for heavy accidental percussive
      > > contact.
      > > > Although this is just a hunch on my part.
      > > >
      > > > Now, that being said, it is up to the attacker to maintain the force of
      > > the
      > > > hit. There are two ways of maintaining this, pre-emptive (armour and
      > > blade
      > > > policy, as well as, training and authorization) and reactive (injury
      > > > reports and disciplinary procedures). I know that my response to these
      > > > heavier blades types is to armour up, and I have the experience and
      > > > equipment from what I do with HEMA/WMA to know and do this. But, that
      > > > cannot be assumed to be universal knowledge within the SCA. In
      > general, I
      > > > would perfer to see more use of pre-emptive techniques than reactive.
      > I'm
      > > > not interested in either hurting people or filing injury reports, nor
      > do
      > > I
      > > > want people to question Rapier on the grounds of safety.
      > > >
      > > > So, anyone have any thoughts on these potential concerns?
      > > >
      > > > Time to find a six ounce weight and start testing things just to
      > satisfy
      > > my
      > > > own curiousity. =)
      > > >
      > > > Archibald
      > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:19 PM, thltoymaker <thltoymaker@...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > **
      > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > A valid point ! However with greatest respect I
      > > > > think that I shall continue matching blades when and where I can.
      > > > > No harm in it !
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > At 12:45 PM 2/16/2012, you wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >The stresses we subject our swords to are nowhere near what would be
      > > > > >required to do more than nick edges. The only way a blade is going
      > to
      > > > > >outright fail at impact is if there are flaws in the metal's
      > > structure.
      > > > > >If that's the case, the blade is going to fail at some point
      > > regardless;
      > > > > >it's just a matter of when.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >Lars
      > > > > >
      > > > > >On 16/02/2012 10:10 AM, thltoymaker wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > From Gerrard: Well since I'm so good at stirring the pot !! ;-)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Intermittently I have heard some discussion on blade matching.
      > > > > > > I believe ( stressing the word believe ) that this stems from
      > some
      > > of
      > > > > > > the cross over blades.
      > > > > > > Those blades that qualify for both Heavy and Cut and Thrust.
      > > > > > > I myself cringe when I come up against a double wide diamond when
      > > all
      > > > > > > I have is my skinny ( in comparison ) oval blade.
      > > > > > > I have just recently seen in real life a very wide curved Katana
      > > > > > > which has ( guessing ) probably close to 3 times the mass of my
      > > > > > > Darkwoods and can be held by two hands.
      > > > > > > Currently I'm not playing against this blade.
      > > > > > > I say blade and am not including the person using it as I have no
      > > > > > > issues with that aspect.
      > > > > > > I'm looking solely at mass and physics.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Mass matching ( within say within 1.5 times of mass ) would make
      > it
      > > > > > > far more simpler than say type of blade matching.
      > > > > > > Just a visual would suffice .. we needn't get out or mass
      > > > > > > spectrometers / scales / etc ...!
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Plus ....
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >Snip
      > > > > > > ><http://www.sca.org/officers/marshal/combat/r
      > > > > > apier/>http://www.sca.org/officers/marshal/combat/rapier/)
      > > > >
      > > > > > > Hmmm Not opening for me !
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --
      > > > Aaron Miedema, B.F.A., B.A., M.A.
      > > > Historian
      > > > Author of *Bayonets and Blobsticks, The Canadian Experience of Close
      > > Combat
      > > > 1915-1918*, available from Legacy Books Press.
      > > > http://www.legacybookspress.com/books.html#Bayonet
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > --
      > Aaron Miedema, B.F.A., B.A., M.A.
      > Historian
      > Author of *Bayonets and Blobsticks, The Canadian Experience of Close Combat
      > 1915-1918*, available from Legacy Books Press.
      > http://www.legacybookspress.com/books.html#Bayonet
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >



      --
      Aaron Miedema, B.F.A., B.A., M.A.
      Historian
      Author of *Bayonets and Blobsticks, The Canadian Experience of Close Combat
      1915-1918*, available from Legacy Books Press.
      http://www.legacybookspress.com/books.html#Bayonet


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.