Open rules, community project

[David Rawlings]

Hi Stacy I appreciate your stance on this, thanks for the input regardless

All free-play of any kind in these arts, whether for points or just for learning, relies heavily on the honor system to determine hits.

It won't in these rules, fighters will be warned for repeated shows of honour, it is up to the judges to call the fighters should fight. Sometimes as you have stated the hits will not be seen, it is better and more even for the judges to make that mistake rather than the competitors calling out(as you very rightly said some people abuse the honour system terribly).

There is no way a judge can possibly see everything that happens every time, especially when the fighters are allowed to circle each other. Padding and body armor sometimes mean one person didn't feel a hit and can't acknowledge it even when the attacker is sure his blow landed. The attacker can also think he missed when he actually scored a hit because the concussion of strong on strong masked the simultaneous thump of weak on flesh, requiring the person who got hit to be willing to admit it. Competitive jerks will purposely ignore blows, as you already know.

agreed as said above, judges must call, competitors must display skill clearly.

#

And then there's the issue of slop.

Fighting is of course a messy business, and many times in free-play I've gotten tied up in a flurry of half-blocked blows and slices that make light contact but wouldn't really do serious damage, even though they looked quite hard. There can be a lot of incidental contact that looks worse than it really is to someone watching the fight, such as a judge. At crossed sword range a lot of slicing off the bind can happen really fast on both sides, and if it doesn't have undisputable pressure behind it then neither fighter may be sure what just happened. Most of the time we throw out such indecisive exchanges and tell the fighters to keep going until somebody lands a solid hit.

Agreed that should be the practise, comes down to education judges.

You would need to make clear in your rules that either the judge or both fighters together (ONLY if both agree) can agree to call some contact incidental and worth no points.

This I disagree on, there should be no input from the contestants, the judges rightly or wrongly should make the call.

Basically, since this is not a true combat sport where you can keep fighting as long as you can take the damage, then to keep it honest and relatively accurate I think you have to have the participants involved in their own judging, with a high premium placed on honesty and being forthcoming when you've been struck. We usually stop our bouts after the first good hit because if you go to multiple blows, you risk arguments over an incidental slop hit followed by a good hit and whether the first one should count or not. A judge may or may not be in a position to determine who's right, and the more blows involved the stickier it gets, so resetting after one good hit makes it much easier for all involved to be decisive about what just happened in the exchange.

It looks like we are looking at 3 to four judges and 1 referee. any things they don't see, sadly never happened. The honour system is too open to abuse so the judges judge...
On the reset, rather than an auto reset the establishment of space or control(needed to score) does seem to work well to break the fight naturally without the need to reset each time, try it see how you get on.

What all this boils down to is I think fighters have to acknowledge hits against themselves, no matter if anybody saw it or not. Any other way and you will have people exploiting the rules and gaming the system to see what they can get away with, and it will devolve into a mockery of what it's intended to be. Anybody caught being willfully dishonest should be disqualified immediately. If you do things that way then I think you can afford to have a lot fewer rules and wind up with much more realistic fighting in your tournament, but only if personal honor to play fair is at the forefront.

again as stated I don't think the honour system can be relied on, better judging and more observation points should deal with the blind spots to a large degree, many thanks, good post.

[David Rawlings]

This debate is actually also given voice in the manuals as well. Look at Silver and Dobringer's distinction between earnest and school fighting. Or Fiore's talk about Abrazare that is to be done "without courtesy" as compared to those you use against your training partners. I guess my view is that they had access to the full picture and did indeed do both play and earnest fighting. So you do have some precedent for what you propose.

Damn I was going to quote the first two at you

But, the foundation is the actual earnest art, which can only be trained without someone keeping score and seeking to game the rules. I am not saying you would do that. I am saying that 10 years on someone else would.

I wholeheartedly agree, that's why the background I'm trying to put into the rules is somewhat anal, to as much as possible prevent that happening...you can't stop entropy though, that said I think we cn look at it from the flip side, sportive is quite often a draw to the martial, and I think the desire to understand the earnest fight will always draw through the earnest....I hope:)

Medieval tourney rested on that foundation. Our ancestors had the foundation. We don't. Until we have the foundation down (which we don't IMO with a few individuals excepted) solidly, putting a tourney world on top of it would have proverbial clay feet and become prone to sportification.

No bones to this, this is a sportive rule set, any tournament we do without killing each other will be, again it's putting a definition to that rule set that represents the best(and most martially applicable) skill sets.

The rules you propose aren't unreasonable for sparring guidelines and tourney was a part of the historical art. I just think that any effort to score, referee and rank (beyond things like a prize playing) matches without us having the actual earnest art down first is premature.

I disagree on the premature, I think the sooner we have the debate the better, but it cannot be a debate that ends in six months with the formulation of rules, it has to be reassessed constantly, with corrections and alterations made periodically as our knowledge grows.

As an aside I very much enjoyed your S&B DVD.

Ta very much, there are 2 you know the second one is loads better. new one's out soon too.
And I finished on a plug, shameless

[Jonathan Newhall]

A set of rules that effectively conveys the nature of swordfighting is obviously the objective here.

Therefore, quality of hit is as important as getting the hit and not being hit back. A small cut is not worth the same "points" in a real fight as a large gaping wound, assuming points are meant to represent who is winning of course.

Then there is the rule regarding two hits within a time period. I think that is somewhat silly. What swordsman hits his opponent two times in two fencing times? If the first hits correctly there is hardly need for the second and if the first doesn't hit correctly then why is it being awarded a point!


This seems still a bit too sportive for me and not well enough developed to mimic a true "duel" type of tournament. It needs to very largely enforce "if you get hit right you are dead, if you don't get hit right you are not necessarily dead, and if you both hit each other right you are both dead." as its primary means of point scoring. If I had to develop a rule, there would be a set of cuts that are labelled as debilitating and some that are not and they would be awarded upon review via two separate camera angles in increments of points. A full zornhau to the neck would obviously be a point while perhaps a drawing slice from a failed thrust to the side of the torso would be a half or a third of a point.


Another idea is to have the rounds last a certain amount of time, resetting fighter positions upon one or the other being thrown to the ground or some other arbitrary condition that would ordinarily result in a fight being over, and total the points at the end. The winner would be the fighter with the best average performance over that time period, denoted by having a higher number of points. This is perhaps less realistic but it is a fairer test of skill.

[David Rawlings]

Hi Jonathan thanks for your time

Therefore, quality of hit is as important as getting the hit and not being hit back. A small cut is not worth the same "points" in a real fight as a large gaping wound, assuming points are meant to represent who is winning of course.

1st hypothetical: say you hit me with a shallow cut and I do not hit you at all, do you deserve a point?
I would say yes, you have displayed superior skill.

Does your cut have to sever a limb or just a tendon, disembowel me or simply cut an artery where it passes close to the surface?

There are too many variables in judging cuts to make anything more than hit don't get hit in return fair.

Then there is the rule regarding two hits within a time period. I think that is somewhat silly. What swordsman hits his opponent two times in two fencing times? If the first hits correctly there is hardly need for the second and if the first doesn't hit correctly then why is it being awarded a point!

multiple cuts are common in several systems, if you wish to display greater skill by risking them kudos to you, have another point.
You seem to be working on the assumption that your first cut will kill, again I would say most bbmas will acknowledge your cut may have finished him, but never assume that is the case. Hit and control, or hit and move out being fairly standard.
In the case you are looking at in the points, you receive 1 point for a good hit 1 more for any good hits after that(to a total of 2)

This seems still a bit too sportive for me and not well enough developed to mimic a true "duel" type of tournament. It needs to very largely enforce "if you get hit right you are dead, if you don't get hit right you are not necessarily dead, and if you both hit each other right you are both dead." as its primary means of point scoring. If I had to develop a rule, there would be a set of cuts that are labelled as debilitating and some that are not and they would be awarded upon review via two separate camera angles in increments of points. A full zornhau to the neck would obviously be a point while perhaps a drawing slice from a failed thrust to the side of the torso would be a half or a third of a point.

again the you get hit you are dead is not the truth of the matter, (you may be and most likely are, but the striker should not assume you are) and it leads to all out attack with no skill in defence, in this rule set you must display both. In a simple format. if we want to make it more complicated we should factor in bleed times, brain stem severs, tendon cuts and myriad other factors, fight and flight effects... I'm not being flippant here it's the only way to make it realistic...

Another idea is to have the rounds last a certain amount of time, resetting fighter positions upon one or the other being thrown to the ground or some other arbitrary condition that would ordinarily result in a fight being over, and total the points at the end. The winner would be the fighter with the best average performance over that time period, denoted by having a higher number of points. This is perhaps less realistic but it is a fairer test of skill.

Again we then have to decide what the scoring conditions are, and this kind of brings us back to the best way to illustrate martial efficacy and good practice.

Thoughtful post thanks:)

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Hello David,

Yes,

While sport tourney types of venues are not the ARMA way, at least you are putting a good deal of thought into keeping things as non-sport as possible.

I know that of course you understand that this is impossible given the fact that by the very nature of making it a sport..it becomes one.

Still, I would hope that if the "community" ever does create a sport version for tourney types of activities, at least there was some imput by ARMA Members. For these reasons, I apprecaite you posting here.

Here's the but...but ARMA Members are still working hard to rebuild the martial effectiveness of these arts, which as we all know are rife with all sorts of challenges. So this may be just one more "distraction" in an already noisey room!

-AP

[Jonathan Newhall]

1st hypothetical: say you hit me with a shallow cut and I do not hit you at all, do you deserve a point?
I would say yes, you have displayed superior skill.

I would say yes with the addition that it does not deserve as much of a point as what would undoubtedly be a killing blow. From your, relative, point of view then yes a point is most definitely in order. The way I'm looking at it I see the possible system as more concrete than relative. A certain amount of "damage" is worth a certain amount of "points" related to how likely it would be that such damage would win you the fight. It's more complex, certainly, but more realistic in my opinion.

Does your cut have to sever a limb or just a tendon, disembowel me or simply cut an artery where it passes close to the surface?

There are too many variables in judging cuts to make anything more than hit don't get hit in return fair.

I suppose if you feel it's too complex then that is a valid concern with my idea.

multiple cuts are common in several systems, if you wish to display greater skill by risking them kudos to you, have another point.
You seem to be working on the assumption that your first cut will kill, again I would say most bbmas will acknowledge your cut may have finished him, but never assume that is the case. Hit and control, or hit and move out being fairly standard.
In the case you are looking at in the points, you receive 1 point for a good hit 1 more for any good hits after that(to a total of 2)

Well, my assumption is that the first hit is either designed to disable the opponent completely (an undoubted win and therefore a point), or to disable the opponent temporarily enabling a second hit to disable them permanently. In this second example it has to be considered: is that first cut really worth just as much of a point as the second cut? Even though one is a superficial distraction and the other lethal? Again I think it's a matter of perspective. Your relative perspective is based on scoring more similar to a skill evaluation whereas my personal perspective of a concrete realism view is that you get a point for winning, or less than a point for coming close to winning with no points for losing. After all, in a true duel, the one who gets the points is the one left alive!

again the you get hit you are dead is not the truth of the matter, (you may be and most likely are, but the striker should not assume you are) and it leads to all out attack with no skill in defence, in this rule set you must display both.

I did not say merely to assume that all counterhits after the initial score should be discounted (in fact, quite the opposite later on) though I can see how you may think that I did. I think that what I've been saying should be applied specifically to the "points gained" portion of the system while leaving the "points lost" portion (being hit back) intact.

In a simple format. if we want to make it more complicated we should factor in bleed times, brain stem severs, tendon cuts and myriad other factors, fight and flight effects... I'm not being flippant here it's the only way to make it realistic...

Complexity is an issue, I agree. Perhaps my standards are too high for what can be realistically scored in a tournament environment.

Again we then have to decide what the scoring conditions are, and this kind of brings us back to the best way to illustrate martial efficacy and good practice.

Well, I think it should be more of a test of results than a test of skill personally. Whoever would've won the fight should be the one who wins the tournament, whether he displayed more "technique" or not. It's perhaps not exactly the same objective you've proposed so far which focuses more on who is the better technical swordsman, though I'm from the school of hard knocks myself (swordsman, engineer... I'm a real realist, you could say). If it's stupid but it works, it's not stupid

Thoughtful post thanks:)

I'm always willing to try my best to contribute to the swordsmanship community. I find it is a great thing to learn about and any reasonably similar endeavor to my own approach (which more or less agrees with ARMA's) deserves some of my time if it asks politely

It should be noted I personally am not a member of ARMA at this time and therefore, while I believe my views are similar, I am not a real representation of the group that owns this forum. I hang around here a lot more than I do on, say, swordforum international, but that doesn't make me a member by association alone it should be noted.

[Stacy Clifford]

My post last night was a bit rambling, so maybe tonight I can put it more succinctly and in direct application to the rules under discussion. Under the honor system I would propose, a fighter can call a hit he receives, but not one that he gives. The judge has the choice to accept it or throw it out. If the action is obvious then nobody really needs to call anything and the judge's job is easy, but if the action is ambiguous then I think the fighters have some responsibility to help clear it up and be honest about it. If there is sufficient evidence from judge's or spectator observation that a fighter is consistently ignoring or denying valid hits (say 3 times, for instance) then that fighter should be disqualified from the tournament.

Regarding Jonathan's points, there are a lot of hits that will chew you up and kill you later (be it minutes or hours), and then there are some hits that very obviously would end a fight immediately. Those are usually very obvious to everyone watching - an unopposed, solid thump that would cleave a skull or sever large body parts. Fractional points are a bad idea (judged sports with decimals in the scores have a bad enough reputation already), but it would probably be a good idea to make some hits worth 2 or 3 points if they are clearly decisive and unopposed (no possibility of a double kill or retaliatory strike). It's slightly subjective, but not too much so. Then again a lot of this is subjective anyway, and it allows you to reward better technique above relentless brutality.

[Jaron Bernstein]

I would agree here with what Stacy said about the highly subjective nature of wounds. The same injury will effect 2 people in a different way. Heck, the same injury will impact the same person differently depending on how sober they are or not. So how do you guage that in a tourney rule setting? In terms of "calling" hits, guaging what is a good slice is problematic. I have hit someone and been unaware of it and they call it. "Nice cut to the hand", while I thought I hit their cross instead. I have thrown what I thought was a good cut that actually hit with the flat and had no good impact. Those aren't insurmountable problems for an "honor" system where score isn't being kept and you are fighting to improve your skill. Just discuss it and reset. I just don't see how you can avoid a sort of "this hit counted! No it didn't!" sort of thing where you end up with a modern boxing match where it goes to a referee decision in a tourney environment.

I do like your project idea to develop a good set of sparring rules and work on that. We all need to consider the best way to do that as we reconstruct this art. It is only the last step of ranking, judging and formalizing it that IMO is where the problem emerges for reasons already listed by others and myself.

[Jonathan Newhall]

I suppose an alternate way of integrating my idea would be to have some hits worth more than one point rather than having some hits be worth less than a point. 6 and half a dozen to me, but it'd make it easier for the judges to work with whole numbers I guess.

[David Rawlings]

Hi chaps, sorry for my absence from the thread, been teaching in Scotland, will catch up n what's been said when I get a few minutes breathing space. for now though here are the latest with proposals added.

Scoring. There are several ways to score:


1: The Clean Strike.

You must enter into distance, strike the opponent and exit striking distance.

The point is awarded on completion of these conditions.

Your opponent(the struck) will will be allowed one step, to strike you in return if he does so you lose your point.

You may score by striking any part of the opponent.

You may parry or counter cut as you exit distance.

2:The second point.
A second point can be gained, if while exiting or controlling you strike the struck a second time.
If at any point (before the natural space*1) you are struck in return, you lose the points.

3:Pinning.

You can also score by trapping the opponent in some manner(ie pressing the hands, trapping with the buckler or off hand). the struck will be allowed up to two disengaging steps after being struck, to score you must maintain the pin for these steps*5.

3b:securing. You can score by grappling the weapon arm and immobilising it, if you do this and deliver a strike, the step rule is suspended.

4: Grappling.

You can grapple the opponent to the floor, you must remain standing, if you get struck on entering, your opponent gets the point.

5: Ring out.

If your opponent leaves the ring while the bout is running, you will be awarded a point.


Countering the score.
The struck may rob the you of your point by striking you in return.
He will be allowed a maximum of one step, to do so.
The judge will control the limit of time allowed to strike a return by imposition within the natural space (see note 1).
In order to null the score he must strike to the head or torso (or weapon arm see *2).

Strike values.
The first scoring hit, can be to any part of the head body or limbs.1 point.

To null the score the struck must return a strike as shown below.

If struck in/return strike must be to:
Head /head or torso.
Torso /head or torso
Weapon arm /head or torso
Non weapon bearing limb. /head, torso or weapon arm

Bout durations and limits.
Each bout will consist of 10 exchanges*3.
or a lesser amount of exchanges within a 2 1/2 minute limit.
the clock will only be halted in extreme circumstances (eg injury).
The winner will be the party with the most points within these limits.

Double hits
a double hit it when both parties strike with no noticeable gap, (ie less than a second between). A no score is given.

The time out:
If neither party is advancing and the judge deems it necessary a ten second audible count may be given, If no meaningful advance is given within that time a no score is called.
If one party does nothing but retreat the same rule may be applied however the judge may award a single point to the party that was advancing at the beginning of the count. The count will continue until a meaningful action is taken.

[David Rawlings]

posted wrong version:)


1: The Clean Strike.

You must enter into distance, strike the opponent and exit striking distance.

The point is awarded on completion of these conditions.

Your opponent(the struck) will will be allowed one step, to strike you in return if he does so you lose your point.

You may score by striking any part of the opponent.

You may parry or counter cut as you exit distance.

2:The second point.
A second point can be gained, if while exiting or controlling you strike the struck a second time.
If you strike more than twice you can still only score a maximum of 2 points.
If at any point (before the natural space*1) you are struck in return, you lose both points.

3:Pinning.

You can also score by trapping the opponent in some manner(ie pressing the hands, trapping with the buckler or off hand). the struck will be allowed up to two disengaging steps after being struck, to score you must maintain the pin for these steps*5.

3b:securing. You can score by grappling the weapon arm and immobilising it, if you do this and deliver a strike, the step rule is suspended.

4: Grappling.

You can grapple the opponent to the floor, you must remain standing, if you get struck on entering, your opponent gets the point.

5: Ring out.

If your opponent leaves the ring while the bout is running, you will be awarded a point.


Countering the score.
The struck may rob the you of your point by striking you in return.
He will be allowed a maximum of one step, to do so.
The judge will control the limit of time allowed to strike a return by imposition within the natural space (see note 1).
In order to null the score he must strike to the head or torso (or weapon arm see *2).
If he is successful in striking you, you lose all of the points you gained in that exchange.
Strike values.
The first scoring hit, can be to any part of the head body or limbs.1 point.

To null the score the struck must return a strike as shown below.

If struck in/return strike must be to:
Head /head or torso.
Torso /head or torso
Weapon arm /head or torso
Non weapon bearing limb. /head, torso or weapon arm

Bout durations and limits.
Each bout will consist of 10 exchanges*3.
or a lesser amount of exchanges within a 2 1/2 minute limit.
the clock will only be halted in extreme circumstances (eg injury).
The winner will be the party with the most points within these limits.

Double hits
a double hit it when both parties strike with no noticeable gap, (ie less than a second between). A no score is given.

The time out:
If neither party is advancing and the judge deems it necessary a ten second audible count may be given, If no meaningful advance is given within that time a no score is called.
If one party does nothing but retreat the same rule may be applied however the judge may award a single point to the party that was advancing at the beginning of the count. The count will continue until a meaningful action is taken.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

Sparring to rules makes loopholes which are only discovered when meeting someone who doesn't follow the rules.

Besides that, sparring teaches one to not hurt the opposition, exactly the opposite what swords are designed to do.

I'd rather hit a pell or do drills

.

[David Rawlings]

You get the chance to score a second hit knowing you could lose that point if you don't control afterwards, so you will only do so if confident of skill. So in effect you would only risk it, IF you are confident of your skills.

Yes, but my point is that in the long run this could work against improving a person's skill b/c it will generally be easier and more tactically sound to just go to "out time" the opponent.

that's a skill, and a valid one too.

The grapple rule is there to prevent the large amount of people in competition that are ignoring shots as they run in. that said it is the rule I am most unhappy with. It was a problem however that needed dealing with.

You would need to ad some kind of caveat as to an obvious blow from the pommel or cross. You also need something about slices. When they're valid, how they're judged, etc. Another thing, getting hit with "any part of the blade" gives the other person a point? Surely you mean edges or the point right?

hmm should be edge or point will change that now thanks, there is debate over should it be the last third.. but gets hard to judge then.

This is something we need to debate, which is why it's not in, my feeling is that it's got too much potential to go badly wrong in a tournament, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

What worries you in particular? Leave disqualification if you injure someone, and I think you'll be fine.

not convinced, if I strike with even reasonable force I'll put someone out. people should be able to hit reasonably hard, not convinced at all.

.
on ring outs:
The proposal is as used by the swedes at swordfish we give a point for ring out(to the party left in he ring of course).

I wouldn't award points for pushing/throwing out of the ring. Just a reset or an award of grappling points as merited. Points would be awarded against purposely stepping out of the arena either backwards or to the side in order to void an attack.

interesting will discuss that more

.

Now outside of being flippant, do you mean you have concerns about the impartiality of people outside your organization?

Not at all, but the fact of the matter is that when the words "competition" and
"points" are put together people get peevish. As such there are a few ways you can do this. You can go the sport fencing rout that even implying that the Ref is partial can get you blackcarded, or you can do your best to have someone not associated with either competing school judge the match.

The latter

Well that's a starting point With that in mind lets make them something better.

Hope you found it helpful

very:) I appreciate you taking time:)

As Jaron and others have pointed out the biggest problem I see with this is not that all the people doing it NOW will be true to the martial aspect of these arts, but that 20 years from now there will be national competitions that use specialized gear so that it's "better". Also, in any system that has points as a way of "winning" as time goes by it ALWAYS boils down to "how far can I stretch the rules to get the most points". I've never seen any way of avoiding it, so I guess I'm just a bit jaded in that aspect.

I understand, when entropy sets in then it will have to be rebuilt, remember though things get more extreme, remember when ultimate fight came out? then it got safer, sooner or later it will start again...

Glad you guys are taking the time regardless,:) many thanks.

[David Rawlings]

will reply to more later, thanks guys

[Jonathan Newhall]

Sparring to rules makes loopholes which are only discovered when meeting someone who doesn't follow the rules.

Besides that, sparring teaches one to not hurt the opposition, exactly the opposite what swords are designed to do.

I'd rather hit a pell or do drills

.

You must consider, Roy, that hitting a pell or doing drills also does not teach you to fight another person very effectively compared to sparring, even with rules.