Violence v. Sportsmanship

[Lord Tristin]

I have been thinking about what the appropriate level of violence is in a sporting event like a tourney. I am not a reckless fighter, however, I fight with aggression and verve. I know that the battling we do is not to the death and we are not out to hurt one another in the modern day as we fight on the field. I feel if I don't fight to the best of my abilities I am denying myself and my opponent the best fight possible.

What are the Order's thoughts on combat in sporting events? For example I fought here in wisconsin at the Bristol Faire with a knight of good standing a few years back. we fought well for about 3 minutes, I saw an opening and i brushed his sword aside and struck him twice with the edge of my shield to open up an attack to the upper torso. is this too violent? I didn't injure him permanently but i did swell his shoulder and collarbone up with the shield bashes.

I ma not posting this to act like a tough guy, or to seem badass,  I would like genuine input on it. What do you fellows think is appropriate in tourneys?

[Lord Dane]

'Sportsmanship' is a character trait of competition and good show. Injuries result from unintended accidents, not carelessness associated with violence.
In this case, it is to prove your skill and merit....
'Violence' is associated with aggressive behavior, and a warlike mentality for good reason. Save it for war or combat and make it count because it is needed to fight your enemies and ensure the encounter is lived through.
In this case, it is for survival and the very lives you mean to protect....

Find what it is you think is worth fighting for, because death will ultimately come to you regardless if through defeat or after victory. So how will you meet your opponent, and how will it end for you??? Answer that, and you know what it means to know the difference between sport and combat.

[Lord Tristin]

Well spoken Lord Dane.

[Sir Edward]

Different combat groups will have different levels of "calibration", but my general feeling (and I think this is echoed quite a bit in the WMA/HEMA world) is that you should do what is martially effective, but always in a way as to attempt to avoid actually injuring your opponent. Accidents happen, of course, but the intentional injury is simply something you don't do. When in the ring with your opponent, you have a sort of pact with each other, that you're trusting the other person not to intentionally harm you.

With that in mind, it's often a good idea to agree on a "power level" (or equivalent) in advance of the fight, IMHO.

[Sir Brian]

To expand a bit on what Sir Edward already stated, You also should be very conscious of making attacks to highly vulnerable areas. For instance many novice and intermediate WMA practitioners do not invest in protection for the back of their head and neck so that is an area which should be firmly set in one's mind as verboten. Nor should you blindly cut when that region is likely to be hit as one regular co-student of mine sometimes did whenever someone enveloped him and he would throw a blind cut over his head and behind him landing on the back of the head, neck and upper back. 

[Ian]

With that in mind, it's often a good idea to agree on a "power level" (or equivalent) in advance of the fight, IMHO.

I think this is the key.  If you're playing by any set of rules, the level of power or usable technique need be agreed upon before commencing combat.  This will leave less room for error, and both sides know what they're getting in to.  Battle of the Nations style combat for example commonly results in concussion, relatively serious injury, and a severed finger now and then.  But the guys participating know it's one of the most brutal forms of recreational combat on the planet.  The SCA uses calibration, and trains heavy list fighters to properly calibrate the blows used in their region (I say region because some kingdoms are known to hit harder than others).

Shield bashes are inherently dangerous because of the very nature of the technique.  It's one of those things that should probably be agreed upon before hand.  If you're used to restricting such techniques, and someone comes along you're unfamiliar with and breaks your collar bone, you can see how this can lead to trouble.

[Sir Wolf]

i've fought vikingsUK style and such. its all based on blows that have enough force to give that wompf if hit but not kill mame or seriously hurt.  but you know the power level needed and not to exceed. cause remember the other guy has the same weapon you do, if you step it up so will he and someones bound to get hurt.

although lol, we did practices of fighter vs horse n rider, one guy missed his block and got cut below his lip,... lol he spit his chaw thru the hole lol. it healed with a cool scar.

[Lord Tristin]

My problem  I believe is I was trained that sword and shield are one weapon, both for offense and defense. I have never intended to hurt anyone of course, but when you see na opening you tend to exploit it. maybe I just need more training.

Thank you all for insight and wisdom. I am getting back into medieval combat for fun and sport, to make friends and challenge myself.

I will quote the leader of St. Martin's Swordfighting academy. "We will never be as skilled as the men who fought in posterity, for they entered battle knowing if they lost, they died."

[Lord Dane]

My problem  I believe is I was trained that sword and shield are one weapon, both for offense and defense. I have never intended to hurt anyone of course, but when you see na opening you tend to exploit it. maybe I just need more training.

Thank you all for insight and wisdom. I am getting back into medieval combat for fun and sport, to make friends and challenge myself.

I will quote the leader of St. Martin's Swordfighting academy. "We will never be as skilled as the men who fought in posterity, for they entered battle knowing if they lost, they died."

Each is a weapon used 'individually' and 'in sync' with the other. Both require skill to be effective in either a defensive or offensive state of readiness. Using your skill to exploit a perceived weakness or vulnerability is exactly why you train to be better than your opponent and what makes you a better fighter. Also, I beg to differ on why the 'men of old' are in any way different than ones today. Just because you are training in a different time period does not change the application. You would still use your training to survive the same if life-threatening circumstances presented themselves today. Most just don't have the willingness or mindset to do it instinctively because of legality, morality, and/or unwillingness to react.   

[Ian]

I really don't think it's a training issue here.  The incident you described could really be prevented in the future by simply adhering to the social conventions of fighting, especially with someone you've never met, trained with, and are otherwise unfamiliar with.  Certain things simply must be discussed and agreed upon prior to engaging in any inherently dangerous activity where safety is a priority.

[Sir Vander Linde]

I really don't think it's a training issue here.  The incident you described could really be prevented in the future by simply adhering to the social conventions of fighting, especially with someone you've never met, trained with, and are otherwise unfamiliar with.  Certain things simply must be discussed and agreed upon prior to engaging in any inherently dangerous activity where safety is a priority.

Well Said.

[Lord Tristin]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me gentleman. I have found our words most enlightening.

[Lord Dane]

I really don't think it's a training issue here.  The incident you described could really be prevented in the future by simply adhering to the social conventions of fighting, especially with someone you've never met, trained with, and are otherwise unfamiliar with.  Certain things simply must be discussed and agreed upon prior to engaging in any inherently dangerous activity where safety is a priority.

Obviously we are of a unique mindset Ian as we train for professional expectations to respond in such a fashion. Most ppl train for other personal reasons without any instilled expectation of obligated response due to job requirements. It is different when you do this for sheer enjoyment but still have the mindset of a soldier or cop per se.

[Lord Tristin]

The main reason I began to train in European sword styles is to honor my ancestors. My Family fought and died for Spain for over 900 years by record. longer still if you consider the lineage of my blood. We never acquired vast wealth or property, but we fought with honor and owned land and served well. If not for Franco and his pigs I would still be doing so today.

My birth family lost everything in that filthy civil war. my family was wiped out for standing for what they believed in and I will never forget that. I am adopted, and couldn't ask for better parents and family than I have now, but knowing my birthright was taken from me by a power hungry fascist disgusts me. I may no longer have a title or land like my forebears but I have their sense of honor and duty. I fight now to honor the name that my blood bears, and to remember that my family passed on fighting tyranny and cruelty.

[Sir James A]

I saw an opening and i brushed his sword aside and struck him twice with the edge of my shield to open up an attack to the upper torso. is this too violent?

It depends on the rules of combat you were competing under, and what you agreed to do or not do as a subset of that. Violent or non-violent is relevant to the context.

I really don't think it's a training issue here.  The incident you described could really be prevented in the future by simply adhering to the social conventions of fighting, especially with someone you've never met, trained with, and are otherwise unfamiliar with.  Certain things simply must be discussed and agreed upon prior to engaging in any inherently dangerous activity where safety is a priority.

Sir Ian explained it much better than I, but I share the same thoughts.