[MR] That was then, this is now

[logan]

it is now also against the rules in that you lose use of the arm that was
struck.  no more putting the other arm behind the back, which never made
sense to me anyway.  however, if him taking his own arm out of the fight was
a "point of honor" wouldnt him bringing it back in once he saw you were
actually still a threat just prove my contention against the act as
insulting?  i mean, he showcased his great honor until you showed him you
still intended to try and best him.  then, he threw the display away and
brought his shield back into play.

regards
logan

"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was
hell." 
Harry S Truman 
"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his
vengeance need not be feared"
Niccolo Machiavelli
For your amouring needs please visit:
www.ebonwoulfe.com/armory.htm

www.ebonwoulfe.com

For worldwide listings of fighter practices please visit:
www.fighterpractice.com


-----Original Message-----
From: atlantia-bounces at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
[mailto:atlantia-bounces at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org] On Behalf Of Brian
Bertrand
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:44 PM
To: Merry Rose
Subject: Re: [MR] That was then, this is now

One of my fondest memories fighting is when Master Harald Ulfson took my
arm, allowing me to take the shield-arm instead.  He put his own shield
behind his back as a point of honor.  Then when he moved in, I quickly
parried and slashed at his head, barely missing.  He then stepped back and
brought his shield back out....that was great.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:35 PM, logan <logan at ebonwoulfe.com> wrote:

> and thats my biggest concern with those that feel everyone has a right to
> fight and often end up passing peoples authorizations even if they posses
> no
> skill.  they are set up for disappointment and failure by those training
> them.  recently there was a topic on the armourarchive about this and i
> wrote:
>
>
>
> when i run an authorization i am looking for a few specific things.
>
> are they familiar with the rules of the list. in other words, can they
> answer a few basic questions like legal target areas, proper engagement
> methods, target zones and their effect (mass weapon strikes here compared
> to
> a non mass weapon, what happens). if not, they fail.
>
> then i look at their armour. does it fit them properly. does it cover what
> is required. does it meet our appearance standards. if its a fit issue i
> suggest ways they can fix it and then ask them to come back when they do.
> if
> its an appearance issue i suggest ways they can fix it and ask them to
come
> back when they do. otherwise, they fail.
>
> now if we get this far we move on to the actual fight.
>
> can they throw a telling blow. does it look like they possess the
technique
> to deliver a stout blow. does their opponent feel like they have been
> struck
> with several good blows. if they cant throw a telling blow they fail. to
> send them out with a "stamp of approval" only to have them face the
> embarrassment and self doubt caused by never being able to hit someone
hard
> enough is a dis-service to the extreme. this is why i see so many new
> fighters give up, well that and while they were being "trained" they never
> received any stout blows and when they enter a tourney and get hit with
> power for the first time they are not prepared for it and they begin to
> doubt the sport. its best to ease them into the power game slowly while
> they
> train.
>
> can they control their weapon. this one is simple. second low blow
receives
> a warning, third one is a failure. there is no way anyone with competence
> would throw three low blows in four minutes worth of fighting. if the
> fighter isnt competent he doesnt get authorized.
>
> you simply cannot test someone for safety during an authorization. you
have
> no way of predicting how they will act once they are in a real fight, much
> less a melee. i also have the one testing them, or myself if im fighting
> their authorization, hit them at least once with tonnage. this gives us a
> realistic idea of their mentality in armour as well as giving them a real
> understanding of what could happen. if they have been trained properly
> nothing happens at all. ive had a lot of fighters get real big eyes after
> feeling an upper force level blow for the first time. the look of comfort
> and confidence when you tell them "thats probably the hardest you will
ever
> be hit in this sport and that level is rare" proves to me that its the
> right
> thing to do. they must feel protected by their armour or else you set them
> up for failing in the future.
>
>
>
>  i think its better to one shot the guy and then pull him aside and work
> with him to improve his skill.  that action could have a bad effect and
> cause the new fighter to give up (although im not aware of that ever
> happening).  if so i would opine that his heart wasnt in the right place
to
> begin with.  thats why i feel its so important to work with new fighters
on
> their mentality first and foremost, then their kit, then their skill.  my
> general experience has been that a new fighter coming to practice every
> week
> should be doing one to two events a month and from first practice to the
> day
> of authorization should be at least 4 months or so.  at least on average.
>
> regards
> logan
>
>
>
> "I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it
was
> hell."
> Harry S Truman
>
> "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his
> vengeance need not be feared"
> Niccolo Machiavelli
>
> For your amouring needs please visit:
> www.ebonwoulfe.com/armory.htm
>
> www.ebonwoulfe.com <http://www.ebonwoulfe.com/>
>
> For worldwide listings of fighter practices please visit:
> www.fighterpractice.com
>
>
>
> From: jbrmm266 at aol.com [mailto:jbrmm266 at aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:03 AM
> To: online2much at cox.net; logan at ebonwoulfe.com
> Subject: Re: [MR] That was then, this is now
>
>
>
> I've been on both sides of some  "Lay on!"
>
>
>
> *Thwack*
>
>
>
> "And the victor is . . ." encounters, and neither felt that I'd been
> cheated
> nor that I cheated anyone.  When the opportunity to score a hit presents
> itself, I take it and I expect my opponent to do the same.
>
>
>
> However, once in a (very great) while . . .
>
>
>
> At one tourney I attended years ago, I invited another fighter to trade a
> few blows before the tourney started, as a warm-up  The guy was hopeless;
I
> wonder in retrospect how he passed authorization - but this was many years
> ago. He did tell me that this was the first tourney he had attended since
> authorizing.  Anyway, having loosened up a bit with his aid, I thanked him
> and awaited the beginning of the tourney.
>
>
>
> The Marshal announced that the first round would be by challenges, and
> darned if the fellow up with whom I had warmed didn't challenge me.  I
knew
> I could one-shot him with the mildest feint, but I didn't want his first
> tourney to end quite that quickly; so I kept up my defense and threw a few
> blows I was pretty sure he could block, and he did.  After a minute or so,
> I
> then uncorked a full-speed shot that clocked him.
>
>
>
> To an experienced observer it was pretty obvious what I had done, several
> people remarked about it to me.  Someone suggested that he might've been
> setting me up in the warmup.  I had not relaxed my defense, only my
attack.
> Some agreed that what I had done was good and charitable, others said I
> shoulda just one-shotted him.  I felt that I did right cutting him just a
> little slack.
>
>
>
> I guess that's an old-school thing.  I wonder what the larger company
would
> have to say about such a course of action.
>
>
>
> Your servant aye
>
> Donal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terri Morgan <online2much at cox.net>
> To: 'logan' <>; 'Merry Rose' <atlantia at atlantia.sca.org>
> Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 9:41 am
> Subject: Re: [MR] That was then, this is now
>
> I agree that the Society has become more historically-accurate in many
> arenas, Logan, but we'll have to disagree on what has changed about the
way
> things are done on the field.
>
> Don't get me wrong - it's your game and not mine. I don't play it. I no
> longer have any interest in it (beyond cheering on those few I know who
> still fight). I simply gave my opinion on what I was seeing over the
course
> of a long membership.
>
>
> Hrothny
>
>
> ========================================================================
>                   The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>    List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>  Submissions: Atlantia at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Subscriptions:
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org
> ========================================================================
>                   The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>    List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>  Submissions: Atlantia at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Subscriptions:
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org
>



-- 
In Service to the Dream,

Brian C. Bertrand
SKA-Bertran de Saint Jean

Cross-sectional studies show that 100% of Russian Roulette players surveyed
had suffered no ill effects from participation.

More conservative longitudinal studies indicate the same, although it should
be noted that these studies had a high attrition rate, with 16% of
respondants being unavailable for the follow-up survey.

"It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion...it is by the power of
caffeine that the thought acquired speed...the hands develop shakes, the
shakes serve as a warning...it is by will alone that I set my mind in
motion."
-Morning Mantra
========================================================================
                   The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
    List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
  Submissions: Atlantia at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Subscriptions:
http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org