From: cav@bnr.ca (Rick Cavasin)
Subject: Re: Why Call Light Blows?
Reply-To: cav@bnr.ca (Rick Cavasin)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 15:47:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.143300.1@runt.appstate.edu>, grs07071@runt.appstate.edu writes:
|> Unto the Rialto does Jonathan Blackbow send greetings and salutations, and
|> sincere hopes that this missive finds you in the best of health, and victorious
|> from a skirmish which has left your enemies smarting.
|> 
|> I have been AWAY for a while, and have come back to notice that there are still
|> some of the same complaints as when I left, to wit: that face thrusts and blow
|> acknowledgement are still a problem.
|> I believe I may have an effective solution, and beg you to hearken unto my
|> words.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> As my editor has seen fit to screw up, this will have to be rather shorter than
|> I had intended.  
|> 
|> 
|> The concept of 'light' blows was put in in hopes that a fighter would be able
|> to make a judgement call on the forcefulness of the blow to his person,
|> correct? and yet there is still a gentleman's rule against using absolutely
|> full force.  I know, since I am rather large and that sort of thing would get
|> me in hot water if I just charged out on the field swinging.  
|> However, it seems to me that the concept of 'light' and this gentleman's rule
|> are incompatible.  if one wishes to make an effective attack, one must at times
|> strike with harder force than one would wish to; and yet, when one performs all
|> the actions necessary to getting through a defense and makes contact and hears
|> his opponent yell 'light', when everyone KNOWS that the person swinging the
|> blow didn't HAVE to hold back, in fact was capable of putting enough force into
|> his blow to seriously incapacitate a person, then yelling 'light', to me, is a
|> gentleman's cop-out. 

This may not be so milord.  It may well apply in the scenario of a normal
blow being thrown and landing cleanly, but what of the scenario where the
person throwing the blow is doing so from an unusual position, or with only
a partial swing, or when the receiver has partially blocked or partially
dodged the blow?  Many times I throw blows and am uncertain as to whether it
was 'good' or not because I know it was a 'borderline' shot.  If it is called
light, I will not necessarily 'powerup' next time (which, though I am NOT a
large person, I am still quite capable of doing).  When someone calls a blow
light, I would think the first response is to throw the blow 'better' rather
than throw the blow 'harder'.  I only resort to the second response if it 
becomes plainly obvious that it is the force which is considered lacking 
rather than the delivery.  I have almost never found this necessary.


|> 
|> Fellow people, the light rule was created to safeguard bodies, and instead, it
|> is endangering them.  
|> What I propose is a trial event or even trial period where ANY blow that makes
|> contact shall be counted as telling.  This would have the effect of removing
|> the psychological urge to swing harder and harder after hearing repeated
|> 'light's called.  Thus hopefully removing any urge to swing hard at all, which
|> would be a GREAT benefit.
|> Realistically, a man armed with a polearm could, in the middle ages, cleave
|> right through shields in one or two shots, making it useless; the reson

This would depend on the mass of the polearm (which would probably be significantly greater than the average SCA polearm) and the speed at which
it strikes the shield (which would depend on the length of the arch through
which it is swung and the strength of the person wielding it).  The trouble
with an SCA polearm is that it is lighter and differently balanced than a 
real polearm.  This makes it much quicker.  Most of the polearm shots I see
(and take) are not delivered with the sort of swing it would take to go
clean through a shield (assuming something roughly equivalent to 1/2 inch 
plywood).  That sort of windup (even with a nice light SCA polearm) would
leave a poleman very open.  It would be very unfair to give a polearm its
true destructive power when it does not have the disadvantage of the inertia
which gives it that destructive power.  Also, polemen benefit ALOT from having
invulnerable hands and polearm shafts.  I've seen polemen do very well
against shieldmen.  If the polearm had such a large advantage in real life,
why did it not come into use sooner (I can think of no technological reason)
and why did it not totally eclipse all other weapon forms?

|> shieldmen do so well against polearms is because they aren't behaving the way
|> they really should. it's easy to stand there and take blow after blow from
|> someone who isn't really trying to KILL you with the force of his blow.
|> But is this really realistic? does it or does it not take most of the advantage
|> away from using a polearm?
|> Excessive force, I agree, is a problem.  I would like to know if this is a|> means to a solution.
|>

I think that we have to remember that we are playing a game which is VERY
inaccurate when compared to real combat with real weapons.
To a certain extent we have to accept that.  This does not mean
we should not try to improve, but we should beware of making changes that
will complicate matters to the point of spoiling the game in the interest of
accuracy.  
 
|> 
|> Jonathan Blackbow
|> No One In Particular

Balderik
From: Dave.Aronson@f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Aronson)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP