Andy Goddard (a.goddard@strath.ac.uk)
Fri, 08 Oct 1999 09:08:16 +0100
Rob Lovett wrote:
>Coreographing does occur, even if it is deciding which of two
>fighters is going to win.
If that's your definition of choreography, then "using the movements
depicted in manuals" in otherwise "free" combat would probably ensure that
it falls into the same category.
>No-one is arguing the fact that safety is the bottom line, but the fact
>remains that saftey could be further improved by training people for this,
>taking training techniques of martial arts instead of training people for a
>stage production.
Where's the "stage production"? I don't see it my group, or in the many
groups I've had the pleasure of meeting and working with. Maybe some groups
in your experience *do* choreograph their displays, but I'd venture to
suggest that's far from the norm.
As to safety. In the past eight years or so I've cut a finger, once or
twice. Got a few bruises. In each case these were caused by authentic
footwear slipping on authentic surfaces.
Want to improve our level of safety? The easiest way would be to make us
fight in decent sports shoes on gym matting, not "study a book".
>Since I joined the Company of MAister, which is a martial arts school fo
>ENglish Martial Arts I have not sustained one serious injury.<snip>
(imo, this is beginning to sound like an advert, not an impassioned plea in
support of an argument).
>>Ultimately, we have *no* idea how people fought in the heat of battle: all
>>we have is limited forensic evidence of some wounds, which gives little
>>away about the details.
>
>I think that statement is completely unfair, archaeologial evidence is very
>good as far as wounds are concerned.
Rubbish.
You can inflict plenty of crippling or fatal blows with a blade and not
mark the bones of your victim. Archaeological evidence is almost always
bone evidence. Therefore archaeological evidence *is* "limited", not "very
good".
>If a style of fighting exists for 600 year, and I think that is a
>conservative estimate, then the style could well have existed another 600
>years before that.
...or may have been invented "the day before", for all we *know*.
There's too many assumptions here for my liking, Rob. You're stretching
evidence way too far for me.
>Yes there is a particular mindset that people have but I
>do not think that psyhologically thinking people have hange that much and
>are fairly well motivated by the same things that would have motivated
>people 200 years ago let alone 500 years ago.
The motivation, in fighting, is to "stay alive", followed by "kill or
disable your opponent". Whether a fight occurs in Viking, High Medieval or
Renaissance times, this is a fundamental requirement: I'd agree it doesn't
change. But the weapon technology does, the armour does, throughout the
huge timespan you quoted.
>From a purely "human psychology" point of view, I put it to you that a
group of mates, spending their Saturdays with reasonable facsimiles of
blunted weapons and shields, can produce devastatingly effective techniques
of attack and defence, if they put their minds to it, and if they train and
practice.
Whether these techniques follow some idealised form depicted in a manual
(whose very interpretation requires an element of mastering the culture in
which it was written) is hardly the matter.
In the heat of a battle *anything* goes. Practising parries is a good idea.
Formalising and ritualising them is not.
Andy Goddard
Circa 1265
Glasgow, Scotland.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 30 Jan 2001 - 02:30:17 GMT