From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: On the nature of armor....
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:10:57 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

My Lords O'Connor and Heydt are not even really addressing the same issues.

>] Consider what we do as a sport--the combat at least.  this is probably
>] the most controversial point.  What is the purpose of SCA combat?  Is
>] it to re-create period combat? 
>
>Obviously not. We're trying to avoid maiming and death.

My Lord O'Connor - The Purpose of SCA combat is not to "avoid maiming and 
death".  That could be accomplished more easily by avoiding combat.   It
would seem that the avoidance of maiming is subsidiary to some other goal.


>] Is combat an end in itself?
>
>Depends on who you are. It's fun, it gives a mideaval flair
>to events, it gets us space in newspapers, it attracts people.

A mediaeval flair?  A "flair"?  This makes it sound like a good ol'
boys picnic with a "mediaeval flair".  How about paintball with
armor to give it a mediaeval flair.   And is the purpose of combat to 
"get us space in newspapers"?  Is that a GOAL to which we should aspire?

The only goal which you described to which I can suscribe is "it's fun".
Now, the question is, what makes it fun?  Is it the act of winning, or
recreating some aspect of mediaeval life?   If it is simply the act of 
defeating an opponent in a physical game of skill, then why not take up
ice hockey.  The purpose of the SCA seems to have some element of recreation
of the middle ages in it.

>
>] What are the permitted types of advantages?
>
>Anything that the Marshallate allows, that you would be willing
>to fight against yourself.

True,  but what is the underlying principle that helps the marshallate
determine what should be allowed?    Are they simply trying to make
hitting each other with sticks safe, or do they have some vision of mediaeval
reconstruction in mind?

>
>] Ultimately (and *I* think, wrongly) there is the search for an edge. 
>] This leads  to the very best plastics for low weight, aluminum--touting
>] low weight, and so on.
>
>Actually, the people I've seen who really wanted an edge just didn't
>wear armour at all, except where required. It's people who want
>to be safe but not slow as dirt who use plastic and aluminum.

I think the phrase "but not slow as dirt" was very telling.  This was
an admission that the aluminum does give one an edge over steel,
and that this is one (if not the only) of the criteria for choosing
aluminum.


>] If you want to wear less weight, then wear less armor and count blows
>] accordingly--but don't seek low weight as an edge.
>
>I count a blow as required by the rules : the actual armour I'm
>wearing doesn't matter.

See above, where you comment about "slow as dirt".  Maybe you count
blows which would not get through full plate, but meanwhile, Sir Can o' Coke
has been able to land 3 blows for every 2 of his opponent who is in
honest steel plate.   The edge lies not only in taking blows, but in
landing them.



My Lord O'Connor - you seem to have an underlying and un-examined assumption 
that authenticity is unimportant, and can be trivially discarded whenever it 
gets in the way of your ability to fight.  In fact, I find it difficult to 
discern a serious difference in your attitude about the practice of SCA combat
and full contact combat ice hockey, except perhaps, that the SCA has a
certain "mediaeval flair".

While it is presumptious for me to speak for My Lord Heydt, it seems that
he and I hold to the tenant that the SCA has something to do with historical
recreation, and that a certain amount of historical accuracy is laudable,
even if it gets in the way of doing things "the easy way".  In fact, I know
that for myself, surmounting such obstacles in the journey is as much fun as
finally arriving at my goal.

Thomas Ignatius Perigrinus