Ealdormere Crown Tourney XXII Finals Second Round

Duke Roak vs. Sir Nigel
Rate or Comment on my video Please!

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• 2008
• 25
• Crown
• Ealdormere.
• Fighting
• Nigel
• October
• Roak
• SCA
• XXII

[alowry2002]

Just like historical pas d'armes the SCA has rules that are not the same as real combat. Allowing an opponent to rearm is one of those rules. While I enjoy the historical techniques the SCA puts a severe limitation on them by not allowing grappling or throwing your opponent. Being a light weight and older guy I do not want to start wrestling in the SCA.

[buboetherat]

@Asko83 IMHO disarming your opponent should be a kill. This isn't pillow-fighting after all ;). It's supposed to be...at least at some level...representative of a violent encounter. In an armed conflict, one takes advantage of "accidents" to win. Don't try to tell me that "winning" isn't the point. Winning is very much the point at this kingdom's crown tourney. Being skillfully disarmed by one's opponent and claiming it was an accident isn't very "chivalrous" either. :)

[Asko83]

@buboetherat

That was an old comment, but here's my two cents: In a duel (like this video) people are assumed to behave in a knightly manner. So we assume that it was an accident and let him rearm. In a melee (group) battle the rules are different and then we can take advantage of such things because we do things as on a battlefield. Also if a fighter does not have gauntlets (using a sword with a baskethilt) then we have to stop the fight since the fingers would be unprotected.

[IgnoranceSucksUIdiot]

What I don't get is the guy with the axe on is back beat the HELL out of the other guy's head over and over and he just wouldn't die. People like the guy in white are why I don't like to play games like this. "I got you!" "did not! Did Not!"

[buboetherat]

Furthermore, I was making the point that disarm was occurring within the context of what is allowed by SCA rules. I did not mean to suggest either grabbing your opponent or knocking them flat. I was saying that if you lose your weapon by dropping it, having it knocked from your hands, or having it grabbed away, etc. should be a loss in a single combat UNLESS you can continue with a second weapon already on your person (dagger, etc.). There is no good argument for doing otherwise.

[buboetherat]

My concern is that allowing an opponent to re-arm encourages one to drop weapon when in a sticky situation. The same thing goes with lying on one's back when hard pressed and on one's knees. Also, having been bowled over more than once, I disagree that SCA rules disallow throwing one's opponent. It is just a matter of how. My understanding of the pas d'armes is that it varied, and the point of the bar was to physically prevent the contest ending up in the dust.

[buboetherat]

Also, I think that being disarmed, or just dropping your weapon should be a loss. Besides the obvious reason, there are a host of historical techniques devoted to just that...relieving your opponent of their means of deFENCE.

[buboetherat]

...one word..Zufechten..