As promised

[lumineaux]

One of my unspoken New Year's resolutions was to work harder to remember to give praise where praise is deserved. Thusly: The Tadcasters clearly have been practicing and doing the hard work to get better. It showed in all of your fights (at least the ones I saw). Keep up the good work.

A musing from my pov as a marshal on Saturday: Is it inherently unsporting to use a sword that is as long as your opponent is tall? Note that I'm not saying dishonorable, because that's a HIGHLY loaded term. I know where I come down on this personally. I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

Comments

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

(impudent answer)
That depends on whether your opponent is Nataliia or Ivan.

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

*snarf*

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

I do not see it as an issue, no.

[artisticphoenix.livejournal.com]

Grumble. My last post was eaten. :-(

Trying again.

I've been dealing with this for quite a while, and the East kingdom is just catching up with other kingdoms. Many kingdoms have been using long and longer blades for some time.

For example, some time ago at the King's and Queen's that you autocratted in New Jersey, no one would fight J with his handy dandy new long blade. Some thought it wasn't fair, gave unfair advantage, wasn't fun, etc. I told him that I would be happy to fight him and used my 35 inch schlagger.

After a couple of phrases, I hooked my dagger on his blade, locked in and then rode up the blade pushing it out of the way, putting my blade square in J's chest. All the while his eyes had the A-Woo-Ga look on them. We both laughed.

Perhaps I was mean in taking an unfair advantage. :-) ;-)

I don't see the problem. If people are using it as a crutch, they will soon learn that they have to get better because everyone is getting better at the longer blades.

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

You absolutely were taking advantage of me. It was terribly mean. You shouldn't be allowed to use your skill. It should all be handled by rolling dice, because that's fair.

Great fight, too.

[owynn.livejournal.com]

I don't see it as unsporting... If we had agreed to match weapons, then yes, it would be unsporting to bring out a telephone pole against a regular sized blade. But this is a sport, and it is competition. If my best form is 43" main hand and dagger, why should I have to fight down to an opponent just due to height. I'd rather someone bring me their best game, and not fight down to me in a list for any reason, be it my skill, height, or currently, lack of mobility. It is my duty to bring my best as well.

[nomadmwe.livejournal.com]

I don't see it as an issue. There are certainly enough disadvantages to a long blade as well as advantages - possibly more of the former.

On the other hand, if the fencer in question tends to rely on it as a crutch I have no qualms about mocking them, or kicking their ass. Or both.

But then, I don't particularly care about matching forms or weapons - I'll take out what I want/am best at/feel like messing about with, and let them do the same. In a competition, I agree with the above post... I'm going to bring my best.

My joke to Natalia aside...

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

My personal feeling on this is that people should use what works for them, but not to the point where it unbalances the game so much that it's not fun.

If the model we follow is historic, then there appear to be two choices:
1) "The judicial combat or latish period duel model": fastidiously correct matching of weapon type and length (without any consideration for the size of the opponents); or
2) "The battlefield or alley combat": no matching, bring whatcha got, good luck.

For reference, our heavy list brethren do almost no matching of weapons - once in a great while, they'll consult with each other, but their basic position is: bring whatcha got, good luck.

I'm not sure that any of the above are necessarily right for us. We have the right to come up with our own way of doing things. But I think we're coming at it from the wrong angle if we presuppose that any particular position is inherently "right". Clearly, there's positions which make various people more or less happy, but there seems to be neither consensus nor a sign from the heavens.

I think this discussion is very valid. It's actually the kind of "common philosophy" thing that Natalia and I used to discuss via email, back in the day, you know, in the olden days Before LJ.

My basic position is in short, that I want people to bring their best game. I assume most people want me to bring mine. People who are using crutches will be prey for those who don't.

[beckishadow.livejournal.com]

For myself, I don't think it's inherently unsporting. If I'm not paying attention to distance and my opponent's reach, then I deserve to get hit. If I'm on my game, however, and someone wants to wave a big honkin' blade o' leverage around me, I'm happy to take them out as Nataliia described. ;-P

Distasteful

[wingblaze.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if I'd use the word unsporting though it's not terrible. I find the entire long-blade-crutch thing to be distasteful and unsavory.

It's something that has been building for some time but a couple recent fights have helped me crystalize my thoughts and put words on the reason for my distaste for the whole thing - my enjoyment of fencing is in large part due to my love of swordsmanship. The skill of the blade is the thing. A fight with a skilled opponent that was hard fought and lost is far better than an easy win, for in the former there is swordsmanship.

Long blades are a crutch. And people use them as a substitute for skill and swordsmanship. Simply put: L2F. Learn the art of the blade and such things become irrelevant. When a fighter uses a long blade without skill, he not only denies himself the experience of good swordplay but also destroys the enjoyment of his opponent.

(Yes I realize it's an over-reaching assumption that everyone is motivated by the same thing. But she asked what I thought.)

Re: Distasteful

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

"Unsporting" was the best non-loaded term I could come up with when writing this. I did not want to say "wrong" or "bad" because that's far too strong a statement.

wingblaze sums up my gut feelings on the matter fairly well. The super-long blades with extended grips seem to me to be a monumental missing of the point of the exercise. It reminds me of the fad for case being the "best" weapons form when, in fact, very very few people actually bothered to learn how to use it properly or elegantly.

Keep talking - discussion is good. I suppose I should throw this same question out on the ek-fencing list, but I think the discussion there would be, shall we say, less informative and more annoying.

Re: Distasteful

[wingblaze.livejournal.com]

Oh I agree with 'unsporting' as a more neutral word. As a respondent, I can pick a word that carries more color ;)

Your point on case is a good one - indeed my entire "single rapier" thing was, in part, a desire to be more of a swordsman and to truly fight with a blade well. If I can do it with a single blade, I can (one would assume) do it with all the other forms. Likewise if your single stinks, your other forms won't be much better. (And I would probably say that there was in some small part a desire to be well established in a particular form, and one not often chosen for specialization.)

In that case though, my opponent's choice of forms does not degrade my experience - indeed diversity enhances it. Not so with long blades (ooo look, he actually came back to the point!)

[math5.livejournal.com]

Being one of the people who can encounter people using blades of my size I have thoughts on this but I want to recover my brain before I post them. Otherwise it's going to be expressed in all manners of wrong and I'm going to piss people off when I don't actually mean it.
(I have no objection to pissing people off when I mean it ;)

[collin-m.livejournal.com]

I'll have to answer this one carefully as I think I'm one of the folks people think use a long blade as a crutch. I could argue this till I'm blue. About 2/3 of the people I fought had blades as long or longer than I did on Saturday. One had a blade longer than mine and then had a grip that extended it about 5 more inches.
For me I have found that my point control is just better with my 42. I hit the target more consistently with it than my 37. It is a much cheaper sword but maybe it's just better balanced for me. I will, most times, try to mach blades with opponents who use a shorter blade and are of smaller stature. But I have found that if I do this I can have a hard time switching back and forth, as either I get too close or too far. One will cause me to miss the other to hit with more force than I intended. So in tourneys like K&Q I don’t switch. I use the same blade all day so I don’t have to deal with that issue.
If a longer blade is a crutch I guess I’m guilty of having 2 crutches. I fought buckler all day Saturday. Right now it’s my most efficient form. I brought it for every bout. Even when my opponent was fighting case with what was effectively a 48”+ weapon in one hand and a 42” in the other. I want to fight my best. If I don’t I’m shortchanging both my opponent and myself. Just because my blade is 42” long am I less of a swordsman? I don’t know. I do know I had fun this weekend. And I care about that more than who has the bigger blade.

[katnboots.livejournal.com]

If a longer blade is a crutch I guess I’m guilty of having 2 crutches. I fought buckler all day Saturday. Right now it’s my most efficient form. I brought it for every bout. Even when my opponent was fighting case with what was effectively a 48”+ weapon in one hand and a 42” in the other. I want to fight my best. If I don’t I’m shortchanging both my opponent and myself.

I figure that depends on what your opponent is looking for in fighting.

My odds of learning something useful drop proportionately to how much I overpower my opponent, or my opponent overpowers me. I'm probably not going to learn or improve as much by using the same move that kills my opponent again and again, or by taking a primary and secondary that together overmatch their single, f'instance. It's not impossible to learn that way, but the odds go down. I could probably find ways to kill the 40" and torso-buckler with my single 30", but it gets less likely the more overmatched I become. ;-)

I move through phases with different forms and blade lengths because I like to learn. Thus, while I understand something of your feeling, my preference leans toward closer forms (a 40" and dagger vs. 30" and dagger can be a lot of fun).

If I'm overmatched to the point of making learning unlikely, I feel shortchanged.

Thanks

[collin-m.livejournal.com]

Oh, by the way, thanks for the kind words about Tadcaster. We have been working very hard and it's nice to be noticed. :)

[katnboots.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the encouragements.

On blade length, I fought all Saturday with a 30". If bringing a blade as long as the opponent is unsporting, what does that say of my estimation of my opponent? *g*

Urm, it's educational, and to some degree perspective-shifting. In the wrong hands, I love my opponent to have a 40+. Love it. Likewise, there have been times when I've felt sufficiently overpowered, such as having single 30" against a 40+ and a large buckler, to find the situation distasteful.

[lissa510.livejournal.com]

No...If you look at historic swords, the blade legnth is often 40 or above (see websites below) So its period and documentable. Long blades are are also approved by the rules. As one of the shorter fencers, part of what I need to learn is how to overcome that. Its no worse than bringing case againt dagger, or dagger agains single. Now, whether or not the person knows how to use it is another question. blade You don't have to match forms. I'm sure I could say many more interesting things, but its mindight and i'm getting up early. Great topic thought! I also tend to think it would be silly for someone my height to cary a really long blade because it likely wouldn't fit them and might do more harm than good...Someone who is tall, however, might be better served by a long

http://www.musketeer.org/Garrick/Blade_spec_article.html

http://www.musketeer.org/rapiers/wallace.htm

I see nothing wrong with it

[unicornpearlz.livejournal.com]

As someone who routinely encounters others with blades my height, I have learned two things:

1) Used as a crutch, can be advantage to me, because I have been training to get used to them, both with my 32 and my 35.
2) Used as a skilled weapon, it's one hell of a good fight. Whether I win it or not.

It's a different game, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad one. It brings a new perspective, and in that makes more rounded and skilled fencers.

Although I didn't care for them a few years back, I have come to accept that they are here to stay, and that's okay. Change keeps things interesting. :)

[fencerm2.livejournal.com]

The skill with regards to use of 40" and longer blades is unique to that with shorter blades. There are plenty of ways, even period and documentable, to properly use these longer blades. And those can make for fantastic fights. And if someone is using the longer blade as a crutch, then my shorter blades will give ME the advantage. Fine with me.

Arguably, someone Collin's height should be using a longer blade than someone my height. If you go by the measurement of either shoulder to fingertip or quillions to bellybutton, this is going to affect the best choice of blade length - and that will be wildly variable.

In a lot of the other kingdoms, especially out west, they have been using longer blades for YEARS now. We don't need to match them - but we can and do need to learn how to fight against them.