| Author |
Messages |
|
mahee_of_acre
Scholar
Posts:26
 |
| 09/08/2007 10:45 AM |
 Alert
|
| I have been wondering about hand shots lately.
Other than skill, it is our sword furniture that protects our hand and not all furniture is created equally. Some completely cover and protect the hand, while others have very little protection.
With this said, hand armor should be legal or hand shots should not.
If you have a guard that provides very little protection, many decide to try to snipe your hand. Then they get caught up inside your rings, and twist their blade around. You have to stop just to save damaging THEIR blade... or they crank it into you hand bruising bones and tendons.
Now, I have had real blades shoved into the bones on my hand, and I can say that it in no way disabled my hand much less my entire arm. So, when your hand is pierced, or your skin on the tip of one finger is (imaginarily) removed, why do we remove the entire arm from play? |
|
Your servant,
mahee |
|
|
SimonFencer
Provost
Posts:132
|
| 09/08/2007 1:04 PM |
Alert
|
we remove the arm from play because the rule says so. It makes for some consistancy. If not we need another rule to determine where a hand ends and a wrist starts and we have enough rules as it is.
As to the other bit about hand sniping...if you are having issues with getting sniped you need to think about what you are doing that is allowing your opponent the opportunity to snipe at you in that fashion. |
|
Paul Franklin
in the SCA: Simon Valdez, AoA, cadet to Mouse
Around the triple W: Simonfencer |
|
|
Guillemin
Provost
Posts:120
|
| 09/08/2007 1:57 PM |
Alert
|
Other kingdoms (Northshield, at least, comes to mind) rule that when the hand is pierced, you may continue to use the arm, but must close the hand into a fist. A second hand shot diables the arm entirely. I find that rule unrealistic and a little goofy-looking whe put in practice. There are those who may disagree, but I feel that if you want to use the arm, you shoul protect the whole arm.
If an opponent is hitting you hard in the hand, it is usually due to incidental contact (bring hand across to parry torso shot). If they consistently hit your unmoving hand hard or attempt to free a trapped blade unsafely, that is a problem with your opponent, not with the rulebook.
What do you mean by hand armour? |
|
Guillemin de Rouen
Cadet to Raoul Delaroche
Rapier Champion of Avacal |
|
|
mahee_of_acre
Scholar
Posts:26
|
| 09/09/2007 9:13 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By SimonFencer on 09-08-2007 1:04 PM
we remove the hand from play because the rule says so. It makes for some consistancy. If not we need another rule to determine where a hand ends and a wrist starts and we have enough rules as it is.
As to the other bit about hand sniping...if you are having issues with getting sniped you need to think about what you are doing that is allowing your opponent the opportunity to snipe at you in that fashion.
Consistancy was my point. Some swords protect the hand, some do not.
As to the sniping, it is not my skill that has anything to do with my oponent thinking they can get a shot into my rings.
So yes, I am discussing a rule change. Nothing instant... but discussing.
I do agree that the double hit rule of North Shield is a bit of a pain. |
|
Your servant,
mahee |
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:102
|
| 09/10/2007 9:06 AM |
Alert
|
Personally, I don't mind hand sniping, it's the finger sniping thing that I think is a bit silly. Most times a blow that reaches to the fingers is a thrust, which under the best of circumstances would result in a nasty cut to the finger, but would hardly disable a person such that they couldn't wield their rapier anymore. If you wanted to disable a hand you're going to have to plunge that tip somewhere between the wrist and first set of knuckles, where all those vulnerably thin bones, tendons and muscles are hiding, in order to sever the hand's physical ability to wield a weapon.
So, if I'm ever fencing you and my attack lands on a finger I'm going to ask you not to take that...so please don't. |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
SimonFencer
Provost
Posts:132
|
| 09/10/2007 9:52 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By mahee_of_acre on 09-09-2007 9:13 PM Posted By SimonFencer on 09-08-2007 1:04 PM
we remove the hand from play because the rule says so. It makes for some consistancy. If not we need another rule to determine where a hand ends and a wrist starts and we have enough rules as it is.
As to the other bit about hand sniping...if you are having issues with getting sniped you need to think about what you are doing that is allowing your opponent the opportunity to snipe at you in that fashion.
Consistancy was my point. Some swords protect the hand, some do not.
As to the sniping, it is not my skill that has anything to do with my oponent thinking they can get a shot into my rings.
So yes, I am discussing a rule change. Nothing instant... but discussing.
I do agree that the double hit rule of North Shield is a bit of a pain.
So, you want a rule to conpensate for improper technique? Sorry to be harsh, but that is really what it comes down to.
And as to incidental contact, this is a contact sport, there are always times when tips are going to get caught in hilts (or the lack of hilts) regardless of how well you control your opponents blade. |
|
Paul Franklin
in the SCA: Simon Valdez, AoA, cadet to Mouse
Around the triple W: Simonfencer |
|
|
TdB
Free Scholar
Posts:58
|
| 09/10/2007 9:57 AM |
Alert
|
The guard you use is your choice. If you use a heavier more protective guard to get additional hand protection, that's a valid choice. If you choose an open guard which results in a lighter weapon, that is also a valid choice. Bitching that your choice leaves you open to hand sniping isn't valid. If you want to trade protection for a faster lighter weapon, you have to accept the vulnerability that goes along with it.
|
|
OK, fine, I'm unapproachable. Keep your distance or I'll pez you. |
|
|
Eira
Provost
Posts:79
|
| 09/10/2007 10:57 AM |
Alert
|
I don't really think that hand sniping is something there needs to be a rule about. If you are getting hit in the hand, you've really got no one to blame but yourself because you made that target available to your opponent.
I say this as someone who used to have a sword that had VERY minimal protection on the hands. My old hilt has a small plate where the tang of the blade start, a tiny quillion on one side and then a singel bar to protect my hands (small sword hilt). At first I got hit in the hand A LOT but eventually I figured out how to protect my hand so that it was removed as a target. Using that hilt was my choice and I adapted to it. |
|
Eira Halladottir, Man-At-Arms to Cadet Hamish MacCarraig |
|
|
Rhodric
Novice
Posts:6
|
| 09/11/2007 8:32 PM |
Alert
|
I would most definately agree, choosing a hilt is one's choice. I rather enjoy the challenge of not being hit when such a "target" is so appealing to an opponent. On a related thought, is there much record of hand sniping used on a regular basis or is this a development due to our particular ruleset? This cat is curious?
|
|
|
|
|
warwick
Provost
Posts:124
|
| 09/11/2007 9:48 PM |
Alert
|
I personally feel hand shots should be avoided for the simple reason that the hand has many delicate bones and is easily injured. If you must snipe, target the wrist.
I run an excersize at the Lions Gate practice I call "Snipers and Pezzers". Partner up, one side is Pezzer, the other Sniper -snipers only valid shots are the wrist or arm, pezzers the head. Fight a best 2 out of 3. If the Pezzer wins s/he stays on the pezzing side - if the sniper wins s/he moves to the pezzing side. Then rotate partners. Good practice for both defending against those dratted snipers and fun of course to pez a sniper, as well as a good excersize for practicing your sniping.
W
|
|
|
|
|
mahee_of_acre
Scholar
Posts:26
|
| 09/13/2007 8:19 PM |
Alert
|
“So, you want a rule to compensate for improper technique?” You were not harsh, I simply failed to state myself clearly enough. I am stating three points. The first has to do with safety, the second has to do with equity, and the third is realism.
Before I discuss this I would like to mention that I am not whining, people are not hitting my hands, and this is not a failing of my own skill. If I fail to guard my own hand, I do not get upset with someone taping me there.
Now on to what I wanted to discuss. Less experienced fighters see a open guard, no matter how much skill the victim might have, the less experienced fighter ratchets up speed, loose a level of control and aims inside the guard.
If his luck gets him inside your guard, then fingers are at risk. If the less experienced fighter feels like they have missed, they crank and wriggle their blade around bruising bones and tendon. The experienced fighter is trying to no break or damage the eight inches of blade that is shoved up inside his guard.
Now when even when all that can go wrong does not go wrong, there is still the pounding on the bones and tendons of the fingers of the experienced fighter that are getting broken, seriously bruised or torn.
I have watched this type of thing happened to some excellent fighters. I have been the inexperienced fighter, and the experienced fighter. So it is a safety issue I am discussing.
Second, if one fighter can armor their hand, then all fighters should be able to armor their hands. A simple silk scarf wrapped around the hand and it is armored, a very period technique. I mean, I can guard my off hand with a dinky shield, why not my sword hand as well?
Realism has two parts.
The first is that real hits to hands do not disable the hand much less the entire arm. Broken fingers can really mess you up, but they do not disable. If this part of realism is taken into play, people will not shoot at a useless target.
The second part of realism has to do with periodness. We as a kingdom chose to use a more period blade and moved away from foils and epees. If period blades are important, why not period guards.
Do I mind getting the back of my hand or my wrist tagged…no. Do I feel that some people take very unsafe shots…yes. Is there an inequity of armored hands, yes. Do I feel that people should only fight with period stuff…for the most part. Do I feel that damage to the hand, in reality, is non-disabling…yes.
So, I am not whining, nor complaining about my own shortcomings. I am looking for a real discussion. I look forward to learning from the discussion. This is why I brought it up. People here are well trained and well researched. I look forward to your comments.
yis, |
|
Your servant,
mahee |
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:102
|
| 09/14/2007 8:41 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By mahee_of_acre on 09-13-2007 8:19 PM
Now on to what I wanted to discuss. Less experienced fighters see a open guard, no matter how much skill the victim might have, the less experienced fighter ratchets up speed, loose a level of control and aims inside the guard.
If his luck gets him inside your guard, then fingers are at risk. If the less experienced fighter feels like they have missed, they crank and wriggle their blade around bruising bones and tendon. The experienced fighter is trying to no break or damage the eight inches of blade that is shoved up inside his guard.
Now when even when all that can go wrong does not go wrong, there is still the pounding on the bones and tendons of the fingers of the experienced fighter that are getting broken, seriously bruised or torn.
Well, at least for me, I can't say that I've noticed the less experienced fighters having a penchant for hands--especially given it is a generally more difficult shot even with the required point control. Nor can I say that I have ever experienced the "wriggle" factor from them. I can say that new, less experienced fighters can potentially hit harder and bruise you no matter where they are aiming, but we can hardly limit them from hitting areas of the body they can harm.
Personally, I am with you in your belief that fingers would not constitute a disabling blow, but anyone who is really concerned about breaking a finger simply because their opponent is a newbie should really just change guards. |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/14/2007 9:25 AM |
Alert
|
If someone hits you too hard anywhere, tell them, if that doesn't work, tell a marshal.
I'm sure you can take a hand shot, but I cannot. Some people can, some cannot. The system is set for averages, not exceptions.
If I am worried about getting my ribs broken or bruised, I pad or armour them. It's my issue, not everyone elses. If your hands are getting hurt, then protect them. If someone else is getting hurt hands, they need to protect them. Everyone needs to use their own common sense.
Generally speaking, you should teach yourself to accept the lightest touch anywhere, everytime. It will make you a better fighter.
|
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Morleigh
Free Scholar
Posts:61
|
| 09/14/2007 6:51 PM |
Alert
|
Hand/finger shots happen by accident, and I think we should accept those for the sake of keeping our rule set simple. However, I'd be very happy if I never saw another intentional finger/hand shot, for all the reasons stated already. I teach my students to aim for the forearm, which is an easier shot and safer. A few good fighters at Crown aimed shots at my fingers, but I assume they were just trying to get a reaction out of me because it's pretty hard to get a shot through a clamshell hilt.
I fought with a main gauche for several years after accidentally parrying a cut with the grip of my ring-hilt dagger (i.e. my fingers) rather than the blade. |
|
|
|
|
mahee_of_acre
Scholar
Posts:26
|
| 09/15/2007 7:15 PM |
Alert
|
I appreciate the discussion. Rule changes should never be made on a whim, and if ever there were a rule change, it would require a lot of thought.
I know Dons usually teach to stay away from those finger snipes. I know mine does.
I also will accept an intention as well as an actual hit...so the soft hit counts. I accepted a killing blow from Mystic at Dragon's Down when with my palm 8 inches infront of my body, he hit with only a touch, but his elbow was still bent. If he had followed through with his blow, and it had been a real sword, it would gone through my hand and into my body. Thankfully, when he hit my hand, he pulled the rest of the shot so as to not damage my hand. I called it a kill.
It is nice when teachers teach intention, outcome, and what not to shoot at, it is really good. I definately appreciate it.
Anyone else going to add to the discussion? |
|
Your servant,
mahee |
|
|
mahee_of_acre
Scholar
Posts:26
|
| 09/16/2007 12:58 PM |
Alert
|
The Pata is a rapier. What stops someone from fighting with a pata? and it is actually period.
http://www.answers.com/topic/pata-weapon
http://therionarms.com/antiques/therionarms_c448.html
Most examples are from the 19c, but there are refrences to the late 16c
I know...dumb comment, but... |
|
Your servant,
mahee |
|
|
Lessingham
Provost
Posts:117
|
| 09/17/2007 8:26 PM |
Alert
|
I would argue that it is not a rapier. Rapiers are from European
Caucasion countries, this is from India. And other than a long
blade it doesn't resemble a rapier. Probably a better fit for the
sidesword fighting.
That said... get one approved as an experimental weapon either way and I will happily fight you.
|
|
"The Will is the captain general of our army and our fortress."
1587 F. Ghisliero pg. 108 |
|
|
Lessingham
Provost
Posts:117
|
| 09/17/2007 8:30 PM |
Alert
|
| First off - shell gaurd hilts are period. But if you don't want a shell gaurd hilt and you want to protect your hand, get a padded glove. Or, get a demi with finger plates... there is no one stopping you from armoring your hand as long as you take blows as if you were wearing no armor. |
|
"The Will is the captain general of our army and our fortress."
1587 F. Ghisliero pg. 108 |
|
|
mahee_of_acre
Scholar
Posts:26
|
| 09/17/2007 9:38 PM |
Alert
|
| I have to agree with you here. Thank you for your thoughts. |
|
Your servant,
mahee |
|
|
mahee_of_acre
Scholar
Posts:26
|
| 09/17/2007 9:40 PM |
Alert
|
I agree, shell guards are period. A padded glove, not a bad idea. I would always worry that I would not feel a shot through it. But I guess with enough training you could learn the feel of it.
|
|
Your servant,
mahee |
|
|
|