No offense intended, but I have to take exception to this.
First, SCA Heavy Combat is combat only as far as that is the name reserved for it. There are numerous rules, reasonably intended for safe participation, which divorce the activity from an actual fight with sharps. Much of the techniques used are quite naturally adapted to enhance success under the specific rules and restrictions of the competition. "Good" and "proper" technique will always look good and proper. What is good and proper in SCA Heavy Combat is good and proper because it works within that context. When SCA HC technique does not match Classical Fencing/HEMA technique it is not because HC is a chaotic situation with a resisting opponent who won't "let" you do picture-perfect techniques, it is because HC isn't a historically accurate fight. For instance, by way of example, I frequently see little intentionality for edge-orientation or cutting. Then, there is the oft-cited lack of grappling despite its obvious high importance in period fighting, the elimination of the shield edge as a weapon, and the prohibition of trapping/capturing the opponent's weapons despite ample evidence of historic authenticity. Yes, I know that different Kingdoms often have different spins on the generic rules and sometimes you can find partners who want more historically accurate training (in fact, there is a growing trend). Don't misunderstand, I'm not downing HC and I certainly don't want to travel the well trod path of "is HC a martial art or a stick game." I'm saying that HC is what it is and let's not try to make it more than that.
Kirk- No offense taken
I have never, and will never claim, that SCA heavy weapons combat is historically accurate. I will claim, as you mentioned, that there are those that, within the safety rules, are trying to do things in a more accurate manner, especially in regards to single combat. In most of what you say you are somewhat correct. However, there are certain forms of trapping weapons and grappling that is allowed. Also, there are a limited number of ways a shield can be used offensively. As to edge of the blade orientation, unfortunately most swords are still round. Not that it means anything here, but the blades of the weapons have to be marked with a contrasting color so the blade is identifiable. If it is realized, that a blow was struck flat by either combatant, or the observing marshal, the blow is not counted. More and more the trend of heavy combatants is to define the blade in the shape of the weapon. I can only use myself as an example, but all of my weapons, within the rules, are shaped to emulate the weapons they are designed after. Some consider it, as they say, Āmedieval sport fightingĀ. However most of those I know think of it as a martial art, and train with absolute dedication to improve their skills.
As historical aside, during the late middle ages, due to the number of injuries and deaths that were occurring in tournaments, it was decreed that they would use weapons made of wood or whalebone instead of steel, and developed a point system for determining victory. I even saw an article; though I havenĀt been able to find it again, that in some tournaments they would cover the blades in thin leather or parchment colored silver to simulate a real sword (medieval duct tape?).
Second, you seem to imply that "classically trained" people don't spar. I rather doubt you'd intended that meta-message. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that, well, they do spar. Different organizations have different rules, intended for safety of the participants, training appropriate to the weapon and the specific type of fighting intended (Military Broadsword is different from Dueling Sabre), and as appropriate to their skill levels.
Not at all. Just look at youtube, there more and more videos of different dojos doing sparring activities with everything from chanbara weapons and RSW, shinai and bokken, to rebated metal katanas.
Let me see if I can explain my point a little better. Whenever people spar, while they are sparring, form and technique suffers, simply because they are in an imperfect situation. While no sparring is going to be the same as combat, the closer in intensity to a truer combat scenario you get the more difficult it is to maintain form, and the harder and longer the sparring, the harder it is to maintain good form. The whole purpose of sparring is to develop the abilities necessary to utilize the lessons learned outside of sparring in the exact situation those lessons were designed to help a student prepare for. The more a student spars the more they learn how to apply those lessons, and, slowly, the better, and longer they will be able to maintain form while sparring.
We all agree that SCA combat is not ĀrealĀ in the sense that people get seriously injured and die. What it does have is, literally, the physicality and hard hitting intensity that most of the other sparring methods do not have. That has a higher detrimental effect on form than a lesser intense form of sparring.
My point is that if you don't see passata sotto, inquartata, mandriti or other "classically trained techniques" in SCA Heavy Combat, it's not because HC is 'chaotic and all real 'n stuff' it's because those "classically trained techniques" aren't appropriate in the context of HC. I assure you, they are entirely appropriate in the intended context.
No debate. I would love for the SCA to find a way to do all of the things I hear people both inside and outside the SCA complain about. Slowly, but surely, the SCA is finding ways to accomplish things some people thought they would never see. My primary examples du jour is jousting and Cut & Thrust. Maybe one day
Kevin
