[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: Emerald Joust

>> ... cambock is neither won nor lost--only enjoyed. As Dafydd often 
>> points out, goals are irrelevant--it's the highlight films that count. 

>I agree, however I do think the Squires did win in the end despite 
>Kain(sp?) changind sides at every chance.

Two points:
1) the teams were not only random, they changed continuously throughout
the three hours that the game went on.  There was no 'Squires' team
except in your mind--lots of squires were on both sides.  There was no
particular effort to keep the sides even.  All of these were deliberate;
Cambok is better when nobody is keeping track of what the score is.
Further, to say that one side "won" at the end is to miss the point
entirely.  When we play with a time limit (rather than a "the ball
needs repair" limit, as at Emerald), I often end the game by saying
"next goal wins".  This is, of course, facetious, and underlines that
nobody should be keeping track of the score during the game.

2) Cambok is a very physical game, played without many rules by some very
large and competitive people.  My primary objective has always been
to have a close re-creation of the brutal ball games of the middle
ages without injuries; in that context keeping score (or, in the
milder version, speculating on who "won" at the end) and identifying
with a particular team are both very inappropriate.  Kane had exactly
the right idea.

>I would have to say that that was the most fun I had at the event 

I'm very glad to hear it.  There was something magic about the clouds
of steam rising from a scrum of filthy, muddy, soaking-wet players in
the rain.  Nobody had problems keeping warm out there!