the best part of the sport of SCA fighting is that we do not rely on referees or umpires or judges. We decide what is good and what is not as long as they fall inside that standard.
This weekend I told a fighter (he just moved from the East and I don't
remember his name, sorry) that his shot was just not quite hard enough.
I also told him that it was a very well thrown shot and that I saw what
he was targeting. I also complemented him on his speed and angle
of that shot and lamented that my block was just too slow allowing him
to hit his mark.
I took the shot.
Duke Logan
Susan Downs wrote:
Their Graces Baudoin and Logan have both referred to SCA fighting as a sport, but I think that a sport has to have a standard method of scoring, and that's exactly what we don't have. It's closer to a game, but that's not really what it is either; it's really a bunch of different games colliding in one arena. Fighters emphasize different objectives when they meet on the field, and I think many times it's these discrepancies that lead to many of our problems. Some fight to uphold the honor of the one whose favor they bear (don't even think of arguing that all do). Some fight in an attempt to emulate the experience of a particular historical period - or even a historical ethos. Some fight for almost purely aesthetic reasons - to look good in a suit of armor or to do a kind of dance of death. Some fight for glory or awards. Some fight to win crown and gain political influence. Some fight for the sheer love of competition or even domination. I swear I think I've seen people fight to prove that they had recovered their health or strength.A serious problem arises when someone who is fighting for the penultimate reason listed meets someone fighting for the ultimate reason in the list. The former doesn't know how to give quarter; the latter wouldn't dream of asking for it, doesn't want it, but may well need it. Extending this idea, anyone who is fighting for a reason other than to totally dominate another human being could find himself in serious trouble when facing a sufficiently capable opponent who is; especially if the opponent's philosophy amounts to "If you don't want to get hurt, find a different game." For myself, I'm not particularly afraid of getting hurt, I know the risks, and like Duke Baudoin I know I can take a fair amount of punishment. However, I have absolutely no intention of injuring someone else in an activity which I pursue purely for my own amusement. That is not what I call honorable. Yes, what we do has risks, and, regretably, people are injured on occasion, but we should all be doing our utmost to minimize those occasions, not trying to discourage those with a low threshhold of pain.
You must take into account that fighting is solely an amusement enjoyed by a wide variety of people, in their spare time, for a wide variety of reasons. It is not a professional sport run for the enjoyment of dukes, counts knights and kings, or even those who aspire to those positions. Many fighters are not remotely athletes, no matter how charitable your use of the term, and most know that they'll never win a crown or be knighted. This kind of fighter, the true amateur, should be encouraged, and is really whom the list should be run for. They are fighting's lifeblood, and without them this art will wither and die, no matter how many dukes there are.
In somewhat indignant service,
Takenoshita Naro
--
_____________________________________________________________
Vis, Fortitudo, Prudentia
_____________________________________________________________
"For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the
Wolf is the Pack."
-Rudyard Kipling