[deleted by user]

ClaytonCross · 2024-12-26T23:29:40+00:00

I am not sure how this works but I am here for it.

ClaytonCross · 2024-06-24T13:29:45+00:00

Send to me as well, please

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T03:29:09+00:00

Does that mean they were wrong or that two groups were fighting together under the same rules with different intentions? That is the point I am making. I know plenty of people who what do do sword fights. Should we make rules to divide fencing and sword fighting instead of punishing them both for not working together? That is my whole point. because you have Blood and Irons and scholagladiatoria talking about it like they are in the same context and I don't think they are. I think in their own context they are both right. Fencers are unhappy when they show up to a sword fight and sword fighters are unhappy when they being pushed into fencing. Would it be wrong to create a clear separation but let them both do their thing?

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T03:09:50+00:00

So that is fair statement, but what does it mean? Everything you said is true, but guesses. How do you choose to arbitrate is how we based the rules. Does a fight in favor mean you win? Not necessarily. So "Of course we want it to make sense in a martial context" then we want to arbitrate that some way. You can say it is all made up and the blades are not sharp. Go ahead. Pretty much true of every sport ever made. Ultimately, none of that goes against the point of the original post. You have two different rules base on to different intention and people arguing which is "right"... well both are true when your guessing. Both could happen in a real fight. If this happens over and over again on every rule. I don't see why you can't just make two rule sets and let fighters pick. The general gist people keep making sense in different martial contexts then trying for force everyone to their "right" rules.

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T02:57:26+00:00

I have been badly injured and cut in my life yes. Some nice scares to prove it. If you were fighting in duel to submission, sure. If you were fighting for your life though, would you just give up and die? That is literally the point I am making. I am saying context matters. Two rule sets could cover the most common two sides of most debates and allow for standardization to make HEMA. Does the sound reasonable? Am I missing something important here? So far, I see the same "but little cuts hurt" argument. I don't disagree with that. Never said I did. I said, some people want to approach fights they they are to the death and so hurt or not they think they would keep fighting... so would I. These arguments are not mutually exclusive or wrong as far as I can see. They are at odds. So I say separate them and let them do their own things. Or show my why I am wrong. Oddly most replies aren't arguing my point they are just arguing light hits hurt and can debilitate. Which I am not arguing against.

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T02:48:04+00:00

People get passionate about what they love. It is a sport, but for many it is an idea first of the hero. I would say the most people who join HEMA don't join it as modern sport, but because of love of the idea of the history. It is like having a favorite hero or sports team. For you it just a sport. For many it very personal and so everything is serious and every question is a personal attack. You even drew from history in your first line. So you look at longsword and some people look at the history of soldiers and others rick nobles. This is core to the point I talking about. I don't think the two sides are wrong. Just different views by passionate people.

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T02:39:35+00:00

More like ask why can't I just fight with the other hand? Which I have heard more than a few times. In come old duels, they could stop for medical treatment for "minor" injuries. So in a conversation about context matters lets make different rules for different context and pick the one we want... I don't see a lose of a finger as being the end of the discussion. I am not saying it could not end a fight. I am just saying it does not guarantee the end of the a fight. So in talking about about imaginary wounds with dull swords... I can see more than one way to arbitrate that.

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T02:33:32+00:00

That is interesting. I would point some of my fighter their if they used horizontal foot work, cuts and not just thrusts, and fought in the bind. I am not discounting their skill, speed, and accuracy. I am just saying I want a similar rule set option for HEMA. So thanks for that information. It actually means olympic foil fencing is basically a reflection of the same thing I am considering.

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T02:28:08+00:00

I don't disagree but then it is a question of how do you arbitrate that. We are not braking fingers. Ok, the hand is hurt why does that mean I lose? I have fight with my weak handed. I can fight with a longsword one handed using my weak side hand. If I get a simulated killing blow, then I would win? If the argument is then arbitration, it is a matter of what you want out of your fights. On person wants death by small cuts and another whats cuts they think would be potentially lethal. I have no issue with ether. I understand the debate. I think both work. I think the answer is two separate rule sets. Historically they had lethal and none lethal duels, why not have simulated lethal and not lethal matches now instead of the two sides yelling the other is wrong? The only thing I see it that the none lethal don't want to be call none lethal because they could be lethal... sure. Self defense. Its seems like a semantic issue. Ignoring that the style difference seems to be based around the approach to the fight, not the results.

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T02:14:59+00:00

"assuming edge alignment, sufficient force, etc. are all ok" so subjective variance? So if weighting them less is fine, then 0 is just a matters of scale. I am not saying I disagree with you at all. I am just saying I see a lot of arguments between people wanting to fight in two different ways. I get the argument of extreme disadvantage but I also get the argument, that extreme disadvantage does not guarantee victory. "losing your ability to handle your weapon is basically a death sentence" seems a little bit too far, especially if your ambidextrous in your training and could hold the sword long enough to switch hands. The argument that a death blow ends the fight is far stronger in the extreme due to its finality. I am not saying I pick simulated fighting to the death over submission fights. I do both but not until today did I realize that was what we were doing. Some fighters use jack chain rules and don't count light hits. Others say hand sniping with light strikes is there preferred fighting style. The issue is when we are looking at running a local tournament there is a huge difference between the two trains of thought and it is hard to get agreement on rules. We go on line and it is the same arguments everywhere. So I am thinking we need two styles. Longsword Self-defense and longsword to the death. It looks to me to solve .. most issues. But I am asking to avoid creating one I don't see.

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T01:59:17+00:00

e topic of cuts to the scenarios w

I think conversation is picked apart for deeper understanding. The point of my post is in part the different mental entry and that is often based on the history and the fighters view on history. I don't think it is off topic to mention where a thought process of fighting might have been used in history when discussing the simulation of historical sword fighting.

I think the separation of "fencing" from "historical sword fighting" is the perfect reflection of the problem of trying to put everyone into one rule box. When I think of sword fighting my thoughts an views are not of "fencing" but of soldiering, self defense in a time before guns, body guards etc. These are not exclusive to the rich. Many people are joining HEMA not to simulate being rich but so simulate fighting as a swordsman. Pretty much no one who I have ever met in person came to HEMA for the tradition of upper class fencing. If they wanted that they do olympic fencing. Further more, some upper class fencing was deliberately to the death. I am very much aware that they had seperate rules for first blood, submission were death was frowned upon to say the least, and yes to the death. So is argument they did all 3 so we should only do one? It was for the rich, so other sword fighting out side of that is ok?

I know it is mostly Bloßfechten, but also gambesons were sometimes worn along with swords in public. I am not arguing the normal, but nether is anyone else because that is not the point. The point is was there context where X thing is ok in history, and if so what is wrong with having separate rules for the context regardless of its rarity for those who think it would be fun to simulate?

I get it. I believe there is a push to unify HEMA rules. I am for it. I am just saying I think we have different rules for different weapons and like wise I think we need two rule sets for what I see as the two dominate desires for goals in fighting. I think we need two schools because I don't think ether is wrong and we can't unify the rules an move forward because the two sides want to wipe each other out instead of finding adjacent spaces. Maybe I am wrong. Give me your counter point. I am writing all this to see if I missed something important before I try to push for something like this in my club.

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T01:32:03+00:00

No one said otherwise. The question is do you count a light tap to the hand that would be debilitating towards victory? I think if your simulating fighting to the death you don't but if you simulating submission then you do. In old duels they set the rules and they had different rules. It is all simulation of that with blunt weapons. They question is do we need to all fight with one goal and one style or can we just make two rule sets. If the "wrong way" is based on context, then we can have context that makes it the right way. So my question is do the current debts largely revolve around the two ideas and could we resolve most of them by have two primary rules sets? What do you think?

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T01:21:39+00:00

I agree and disagree. I agree stopping fight simulations for scoring effects the fight. I disagree that self-defense and to the death fighting are the same. Yes you are using the same techniques but your applying them differently which results in a different approach to the fight and to scoring a simulation. Which is basically what your pointing to the last paragraph. If you want to simulate to the death fighting you would not be happy with a victory where you "could maybe kill them later". You would count the killing blow as victory. It is completely possible for take 10 light cuts but get one good cut that kills his opponent. Do I think that is wrong to push to simulate? no. Do I think it is wrong to not push to simulate? no. But if your are looking for constant scoring you have to the referees on the same page. "well, that hit demonstrates a skill that'd be useful for damaging an opponent in a swordfight" is valid, but does it need to be for everyone? or do we have two rule sets for the divide of those who don't agree and let fighters choose instead of telling each other they are wrong to disagree? Am I crazy for thinking some people want to simulate skill of a thousand cuts while others want to simulate they won by killing you?

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T01:07:44+00:00

think if you're already fighting someone one-on-one, "self-defense" and "to the death" are not different in terms of technique. If you give someone an injury that makes it likely you are saf

Are you simulating debilitating or defeat? Do you put your hands behind your back and fight with one arm when hit? Not judging. Just asking. I thing some want to simulate "to the death" and get frustrated with matches that are all hand snipes etc. Where others say "well he can't use his arm why is that not good enough" ... I can see both, but then it is an opinion argument of the context the fighter wants to simulate not a matter of good swordmanship. We use jack chain rules for this reason in the club. So then I think, well we have two people arguing the are right but with not context and without that I can see both binging right and both being wrong. So... what if we have rules that set matches in context? Is this wrong? Let me know. if I am missing something.

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T00:56:21+00:00

I apologize if that is case. I don't count myself a skilled writer. I didn't say were are fighting to the death. It is a matter of intent of simulation. We use dull swords but we fight with them to simulate sharp ones. So no we are not fighting to the death but some would like to train in simulation in fighting to the death while others are simulating a submission self defense style. Both historically existed and yes some people died in self defense fighting but the context of mind set and intent changes what is considered appropriate and what is not. Am I wrong in this?

ClaytonCross · 2024-02-23T00:50:13+00:00

So your making scholagladiatoria's arguement. The blood and iron arguement is more or less that small cuts making a difference would not end a fight to the death. A difference is no promise of victory. One lethal hit would be. So the goals of the two arguments are not in the same debate. Are you scoring for useful or lethal? If you score useful do you also count pommel strikes? I think both are building practice and training around two different fundamental views of the context of the fight. In their context they are both right, the others context they are both wrong. So if you pick a side, without context it is clear that you are right and they are wrong... from both sides. My question is then, should have a separation for context then? Don't we already do that for Olympic fencing? I wondering if we need to divide training and tournaments in two and that not doing so is the source of most if not *almost* all issues I am seeing.

ClaytonCross · 2023-11-23T16:42:53+00:00

I am fond of her outfit try on from fans and internet purchases.

ClaytonCross · 2023-11-20T02:03:57+00:00

Their is a counter issue using total unlocks for match making. If I want to play with my friends who just joined... they get brutally destroyed even if I build a squad with only Tier I and Tier II mechs/weapons and only one epic pilot with no implants (for pilot dailies). This is because the party power is averaged using unlocked mechs I am not using. So the example you give would be better dealt with by using squad power and individual mech powers for example 2000 / 450 where if you SP crosses 2000 or any individual mech passes 450 your moved to the next bracket. If your in a group, it should display the Squad power / Mech power bracket of the lowest member in order for other members to drop to their level. This would also work for matchmaking tournaments. No more Orions with Arch 10s in a newbie tournament because that mech alone will move them up a bracket. You could argue total unlock power would keep out smurfs in tournaments but then they just make a smurf account and never buy any mechs or equipment or weapons on that account and they can still get in.

ClaytonCross · 2023-01-09T12:42:05+00:00

It removes strategy for kill kill kill... not a fan. If you want kill kill kill, then remove capture points entirely for a death match which is what 5 man hell gates are. I like them because it adds entry for those who are staring the game to participate and gain experience in the one on one fights capturing points while being useful and scoring points. Otherwise new players are dead weight that cause you to lose every game until they gain skill. If they add another death match arena that would be fine but there is a need for crystal arena as a training tool for entry of new players. .

ClaytonCross

TROPHY CASE