Open rules, community project

[David Rawlings]

Hi, I've been working on several forums for some time, trying to find a sound set of tournament rules that encourage good skill sets, and are fairly impartial. Sadly it's taken me ages to bring it here for which I apologise: the plan is to get our fractured community to input into one project showing how well we can, if we choose, work together.
there are some gaps in these rules so if you see valid additions please say.
Scoring.
In order to score a point you must be able to:
Enter into striking distance.
Strike successfully.
Exit that distance or control the opponent’s weapon.
The point is awarded on completion of these conditions.
You may score by striking any part of the opponent.
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.

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 4 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.

Optional rules and fine print

Exchanges
An exchange is from the command to fight, either the first hit, forced ring out, a successful grapple, or man down.

Rule 1 clean strikes and points
A clean strike (a strike capable of scoring) will be:
Any edge, point, or pommel contact on any part of the body, this applies also to buckler strikes, a successful grapple.
Strikes with the flat will not score.

Rule 2 double kills
In the event of a strike being given and a strike being received at or almost at the same time a no score will be awarded regardless of the location struck on either party.

Rule 4 grapples and secures.
A clean take-down grapple (unopposed) will be awarded a full point.
To be clean it must be:
i: unopposed with, no strikes cuts or thrusts contacting the grappler.
ii: result in one party being taken to the ground with and one still standing,
A grapple that ends with both parties on the floor will be given no points and the fight will be reset.
A pommel strike counter is not regarded as opposition, but will be awarded as a double kill.
any unresolved standing grapple will be halted after five seconds.
Any grapple taken to the floor must abide by the above rules must be done with minimum force and maximum control.
failure to grapple safely will result in disqualification.
IF the grappler is struck by any part of the blade on entering, he does not score the point, the point being scored instead by the grappler’s opponent.
Arm grapples and weapon secures
If a weapon arm/stationary weapon, is secured* and a blow delivered, with no counter blow received, a full point will be awarded, upon the release of the arm/weapon, no returning cut is allowed.

*a secure: may be:
i: a grip on the arm, or stationary weapon
ii: a trap/pin, of said items with either arm, hand, or buckler
in all cases the motion of the weapon must be visibly halted for the grapple/secure to be considered “on”.
Rule five
If a pommel strike (/buckler strike/punch/butt) is given unopposed a point will be awarded.
If struck by the blade in return the score is given to the to the blade strike (on successfully achieving natural space, or weapon control).
If like is countered with like (or any of the four interchanged) the score is null (no points)

The limb interrupt.

If a strike or would have struck either head torso or weapon arm, and and another limb is placed in its path, the strike is deemed to have hit the original target.

This also applies to:

pushing the limbs against the blade to force through an attack.

Grasping or grappling a moving blade.


Note.
*1:Natural space:
Natural space is the gap created when one party flees back, or out beyond striking distance. and the other party does not pursue them
* 2: Non threatening cuts, if in the exchange one party strikes to the non weapon bearing limb, he may be struck in return to the body head or the weapon bearing limb. This is to encourage proof that he has chosen a finishing*4 attack.
*3 in the final and semi final, exchange number may be increased.
*4 finishing attack, an attack that would either: stop the fight immediately or within a very short time.

[Chris Ouellet]

Is it really necessary to quantify so many situations?
1 solid blow/stab with no response means your dead.
If the opponent does not agree upon the blow being sufficiently solid, your next blow is agreed upon as being able to land with considerably more force.
Pain is generally a good detractor to pride.
Double kills are bad swordsmanship, reset and fight better.
This has personally worked for me.

[David Rawlings]

Is it really necessary to quantify so many situations?
1 solid blow/stab with no response means your dead.
If the opponent does not agree upon the blow being sufficiently solid, your next blow is agreed upon as being able to land with considerably more force.
Pain is generally a good detractor to pride.

Double kills are bad swordsmanship, reset and fight better.
This has personally worked for me.

Hi Chris, yes it is, in my opinion, firstly for the reality, that many assumed kills aren't, and blade based martial arts reflect this.(even if the likelihood is he may die, your assumption should be he hasn't).
Secondly with the step after rules (used in the Belgian rules) it shows a higher skill set, and makes it differ from sportive fencing and the like.
The rules can be summarised though:

1)You can score a point by hitting your opponent first,
2)you can score another point if you hit him twice or more.
3)they will have up to a step to hit you back if they do so you lose your points.

4)You cannot score if you have been hit, you will get up to one step to strike your opponent, if you do so, they lose their points.

5)You can grapple, but if you get hit, your opponent gets the points.
the rest is there really to make sure any grey areas in judging are covered.

Also in larger tournament situations we are trying to get away from pain being the deciding factor.

certainly I agree it has it's benefits in learning though
Thanks very much for your thoughts.

[Sal Bertucci]

These rules support sword tag, much like sport fencing. If I'm trying to gather points why would I risk hitting my opponent twice if he can void all my points. Tactically it would be smarter to stay back and sword-snipe. Likewise, someone who wants to "win" will be less likely to grapple b/c then they have a large risk of not just of "not scoring", but of getting "scored on".

Also, there is no mention of where you need to hit with the blade. Does hitting someone with the last inch of the blade on the "off arm" constitute a point? What about the face? What about the back of the leg?

Also, you never mention any of the various possibilities that can be occomplished with the Mortschlag(sp?).

How big is the arena? What happens if you get out of bounds?

I can see what the rules are trying to occomplish, but when you have a competition based on points competetive people manipulate the rules for the best chance to win. As such I see it not having the effect that you want, and becoming a game. A violent game that is based on RMA, but still a game.

One other negative thing, there is no mention of who can be a ref, and how you are going to avoid partiality. This is something that you need to consider.

You put a lot of work into this though, and I like the diversity of techniques allowed. I also think that it would work well in a small group and/or occasional use setting. I think this is really useful just as a reference for freeplay as well. Thank you for all the ideas.

[Jaron Bernstein]

First, let me compliment you on putting considerable thought into the idea. I still think the idea of formal ranking tournaments is a bad idea because is sets us on what is called a conceptual "slippery slope" in American politics towards a place I don't want to see the art go. It may not look bad now, but this path can end up as sport fencing or kendo at some unforeseen point in th future. I am a big supporter of free play/sparring early and often, and the rules you list might be a fine way to regulate free play for you and your training partners. It just seems once you introduce ranking and tournament parameters around any athletic activity you move it more towards a sport. In combative terms, MMA, Judo, Muay Thai and western Boxing are fine sports and excellent means of self defense. But somewhere along the way a bit of baby got lost with the bathwater when it turned into a rules game. I don't want that to happen here.

[David Rawlings]

These rules support sword tag, much like sport fencing. If I'm trying to gather points why would I risk hitting my opponent twice if he can void all my points. Tactically it would be smarter to stay back and sword-snipe. Likewise, someone who wants to "win" will be less likely to grapple b/c then they have a large risk of not just of "not scoring", but of getting "scored on".

Hi Sal, from the testing so far they don't encourage tag, this is because of the follow on step(people that tag tend not to be covering themselves so well). So far in fact we've found the opposite to be true, it's encouraged engagement form some of our more timid members.

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.

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.

Also, there is no mention of where you need to hit with the blade. Does hitting someone with the last inch of the blade on the "off arm" constitute a point? What about the face? What about the back of the leg?

Simply edge or point and it must be clearly visible to the judge.
On the quality of the hit, providing you don't get hit in return, then no it doesn't matter overly as well you got a hit and the other guy didn't(he can whine all he likes about it's quality), but again it has to be clearly visible.
If you do get hit as well, that's double kill, tough cookie.

Also, you never mention any of the various possibilities that can be occomplished with the Mortschlag(sp?).

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.

How big is the arena? What happens if you get out of bounds?

on size:
There is some debate on that, I'd like to hear more opinions before we decide.
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 can see what the rules are trying to occomplish, but when you have a competition based on points competetive people manipulate the rules for the best chance to win. As such I see it not having the effect that you want, and becoming a game. A violent game that is based on RMA, but still a game.

Something to be very clear on, this is to try and establish a set of sportive rules(as the Belgian longsword fencing guilds did before us). It is to make sure that we have a set that represents the best of the martial aspects of the art.

There are some things that you cannot do in any form of bouting (ie thibault's control of the blade by entry to the hilt) so in effect even our most vicious games are just that, games.
However, these are not meant to be rules to dictate club and training competitions, it's meant to be an accepted compromise across the community with input from the community, so that if you go to a tournament in the uk, you can train to the same expectations as in new Zealand.
Some won't want to be involved, and I understand utterly their concerns over dilution of the art(being a fairly martial purist myself). Again this is not for those who want mortslag and wrestling till you submit, eye gouging and ball biting, those rules are for our own schools.

One other negative thing, there is no mention of who can be a ref, and how you are going to avoid partiality. This is something that you need to consider.

Who do you want to be a ref? I'd suggest that you pick them in the same way you would usually. Now outside of being flippant, do you mean you have concerns about the impartiality of people outside your organisation?
If that's more what you mean then it's a valid concern and one I'd welcome suggestions in addressing.

You put a lot of work into this though, and I like the diversity of techniques allowed. I also think that it would work well in a small group and/or occasional use setting. I think this is really useful just as a reference for freeplay as well. Thank you for all the ideas.

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

[David Rawlings]

First, let me compliment you on putting considerable thought into the idea. I still think the idea of formal ranking tournaments is a bad idea because is sets us on what is called a conceptual "slippery slope" in American politics towards a place I don't want to see the art go. It may not look bad now, but this path can end up as sport fencing or kendo at some unforeseen point in th future. I am a big supporter of free play/sparring early and often, and the rules you list might be a fine way to regulate free play for you and your training partners. It just seems once you introduce ranking and tournament parameters around any athletic activity you move it more towards a sport. In combative terms, MMA, Judo, Muay Thai and western Boxing are fine sports and excellent means of self defense. But somewhere along the way a bit of baby got lost with the bathwater when it turned into a rules game. I don't want that to happen here.

Hi Jaron, that is a very valid concern. My approach for years has been similar and my concerns the same.
My feelings now are, get something good in place before some bugger comes and makes a farce of it later(and I reckon they will).
Again I would point out that this thing we call a martial art has had a sportive element for centuries, it's something we tend to shy away from while we are being "serious martial artists".
But I do understand your concerns, I hope you can understand some of my reasonings.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

The underlying assumption seems to be that it's a duel, and that's the assumption of sport fencing isn't it ?

There are a vast number of other secenarios ( .e.g. self defence situation s from the relevant period ) which don't necessarily include the two participants having the same objective, or meeting in the middle of a flat unobstructed space with a set time limit so it seems a bit fake to me.

Historically wasn't most sword training for war done with a pell ?

In reality outside of the duel there would often have been no rules.

.

.

[Doug Marnick]

I, too, appreciate the time, thought, and effort that went into this, but I respectfully reject all of it.
For fun? Why not. But nothing official.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: sparring is not about winning; it's about understanding why one is successful or not against an opponent. It's a learning experience. I see that a learning experience can come from this, but I don't like turning this martial art into a game.

[Chris Ouellet]

Hi Chris, yes it is, in my opinion, firstly for the reality, that many assumed kills aren't, and blade based martial arts reflect this.(even if the likelihood is he may die, your assumption should be he hasn't).

Hi Dave, I agree with you that you should never let your guard down, and sparing to two un-answered hits is something I've done in the past to crudely simulate the effect of armor denying a kill on a good blow. It's not exactly your rules, though it certainly comes close.
Understand that I'm still a relative outsider to WMA, I've been looking more closely as English longsword recently but I don't have a lot of experience with it. I do however have considerable experience with asian styles (Korean most specifically).
My experience with sparring to two un-answered hits is it results in a whole lot of bruising and grappling. Bruising because people move faster, with less control, when there's incentive to hit more than once. Grappling because distance can break more readily.

I agree with you that all sparring is in the end, a game, it's however the intent which distinguishes sport from sparring and a very specific set of rules are often the dividing line.
That being said, the best way to test any set of rules in a game is to see what breaks them.
I see a few issues that may/may not break your rules:
#1 the definition of what a clean strike lends itself to ineffective tapping, slices, think Olympic fencing with two finger blade control.
#2 it's unclear if the opponent must willingly take a step to nullify his chance to strike back, does pushing an opponent count as grappling? If not, and the opponent is forced to take two steps back does he negate his counter window?
#3 To "break" these rules I would personally simply cut as fast as I can repeatedly, and because my cut is very fast I stand a good chance of landing a blow and tying up some sort of reply in a bind by pure dumb luck rather than deliberate intent.
Ex: I cut to the head, since by the rules you have to reply to the head/torso, I just cut again as fast as possible in the same vicinity and chances are good our blades will meet, if they don't, no loss, I cut again to the head... the unfortunate consequence may be that kendoka find the competition very appealing because they tap, push and cut repeatedly to the head which often randomly enter a bind (firsthand experience tells me so).

[Sal Bertucci]

Hi Sal, from the testing so far they don't encourage tag, this is because of the follow on step(people that tag tend not to be covering themselves so well). So far in fact we've found the opposite to be true, it's encouraged engagement form some of our more timid members.

Interesting

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.

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?

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.

.
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.

.

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.

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

Hope you found it helpful

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.

[Gene Tausk]

Hi, I've been working on several forums for some time, trying to find a sound set of tournament rules that encourage good skill sets, and are fairly impartial. Sadly it's taken me ages to bring it here for which I apologise: the plan is to get our fractured community to input into one project showing how well we can, if we choose, work together.
there are some gaps in these rules so if you see valid additions please say.
Scoring.
In order to score a point you must be able to:
Enter into striking distance.
Strike successfully.
Exit that distance or control the opponent’s weapon.
The point is awarded on completion of these conditions.
You may score by striking any part of the opponent.
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.

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 4 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.

Optional rules and fine print

Exchanges
An exchange is from the command to fight, either the first hit, forced ring out, a successful grapple, or man down.

Rule 1 clean strikes and points
A clean strike (a strike capable of scoring) will be:
Any edge, point, or pommel contact on any part of the body, this applies also to buckler strikes, a successful grapple.
Strikes with the flat will not score.

Rule 2 double kills
In the event of a strike being given and a strike being received at or almost at the same time a no score will be awarded regardless of the location struck on either party.

Rule 4 grapples and secures.
A clean take-down grapple (unopposed) will be awarded a full point.
To be clean it must be:
i: unopposed with, no strikes cuts or thrusts contacting the grappler.
ii: result in one party being taken to the ground with and one still standing,
A grapple that ends with both parties on the floor will be given no points and the fight will be reset.
A pommel strike counter is not regarded as opposition, but will be awarded as a double kill.
any unresolved standing grapple will be halted after five seconds.
Any grapple taken to the floor must abide by the above rules must be done with minimum force and maximum control.
failure to grapple safely will result in disqualification.
IF the grappler is struck by any part of the blade on entering, he does not score the point, the point being scored instead by the grappler’s opponent.
Arm grapples and weapon secures
If a weapon arm/stationary weapon, is secured* and a blow delivered, with no counter blow received, a full point will be awarded, upon the release of the arm/weapon, no returning cut is allowed.

*a secure: may be:
i: a grip on the arm, or stationary weapon
ii: a trap/pin, of said items with either arm, hand, or buckler
in all cases the motion of the weapon must be visibly halted for the grapple/secure to be considered “on”.
Rule five
If a pommel strike (/buckler strike/punch/butt) is given unopposed a point will be awarded.
If struck by the blade in return the score is given to the to the blade strike (on successfully achieving natural space, or weapon control).
If like is countered with like (or any of the four interchanged) the score is null (no points)

The limb interrupt.

If a strike or would have struck either head torso or weapon arm, and and another limb is placed in its path, the strike is deemed to have hit the original target.

This also applies to:

pushing the limbs against the blade to force through an attack.

Grasping or grappling a moving blade.


Note.
*1:Natural space:
Natural space is the gap created when one party flees back, or out beyond striking distance. and the other party does not pursue them
* 2: Non threatening cuts, if in the exchange one party strikes to the non weapon bearing limb, he may be struck in return to the body head or the weapon bearing limb. This is to encourage proof that he has chosen a finishing*4 attack.
*3 in the final and semi final, exchange number may be increased.
*4 finishing attack, an attack that would either: stop the fight immediately or within a very short time.

What you have done is created the rules for a sport. No one in ARMA cares about sport fencing, and what you have done is created a glorified form of sport fencing, just dressed it another costume. While I appreciate the time you spent on these things, such time is better spent studying the manuals, at least for those who really want to understand the fighting arts of our European ancestors.

The world needs another sport like it needs a hole in the head. Good luck in your endevours. This is not what we in ARMA are about. Take it elsewhere.

[Stacy Clifford]

I'm not any more inclined to participate in tournaments than anyone else in ARMA for the reasons already stated, but since you're asking for our input I see nothing wrong with giving it. Pretty well thought out so far from what I can see, but there is something in particular I think would require more attention.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

[Jaron Bernstein]

"Hi Jaron, that is a very valid concern. My approach for years has been similar and my concerns the same."

I am just not sure there is a need for a formal sport method of scoring with referees and rules. Such a thing creates a structural incentive to eventually "game the game" via the rules as takes place even in things like Judo or Boxing. Human nature would eventually assert itself in that regard, however well intentioned it starts out.

"My feelings now are, get something good in place before some bugger comes and makes a farce of it later(and I reckon they will)."

The issue is that any fighting art that formalizes its rules in that way will eventually conform the fighting to the rules rather than the rules to the fighting. Again, the rules you suggest are well thought out and make for a perfectly reasonable way to regulate freeplay. The problem emerges only when you start to keep score for the record.

"Again I would point out that this thing we call a martial art has had a sportive element for centuries, it's something we tend to shy away from while we are being "serious martial artists"."

Tournaments were certainly part of the Bad Old Days. The difference is they ultimately did have the reality of use to anchor their understanding, even in tourney. Fiore's students may have fought in the lists for sport, but they also fought in the field for real. We don't have that grounding today, so my concern is that reviving a tourney method today will lead to distortions our ancestors might not have been as prone to.

"But I do understand your concerns, I hope you can understand some of my reasonings."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[David Rawlings]

Understand that I'm still a relative outsider to WMA, I've been looking more closely as English longsword recently but I don't have a lot of experience with it. I do however have considerable experience with asian styles (Korean most specifically).

Any input is welcome I do appreciate you taking the time

My experience with sparring to two un-answered hits is it results in a whole lot of bruising and grappling. Bruising because people move faster, with less control, when there's incentive to hit more than once. Grappling because distance can break more readily.

while that does lead to an interesting point, what if both run in to grapple and get struck?
they should just be awarded double kill and split. However I think that because it's fair easy to rob the points I don't think that'll be too much worry as there has to be the establishment of control through distance or grip to score at all.(you raise a very good point later that relates to this though).

I agree with you that all sparring is in the end, a game, it's however the intent which distinguishes sport from sparring and a very specific set of rules are often the dividing line.
That being said, the best way to test any set of rules in a game is to see what breaks them.

Agreed and agreed.

I see a few issues that may/may not break your rules:
#1 the definition of what a clean strike lends itself to ineffective tapping, slices, think Olympic fencing with two finger blade control..

Something that should make a difference here.
1 rather than expecting the judges to recognise the slightest tap, encourage an air of scepticism, so rather than the onus being on the judge to spot every little tap, it is on the competitor to make the hit clear and structured(ie the strike or thrust having a clearly penetrative path/ depth intention) that explanation should go in the rules, I'm just wary of the flip side so I'm discussing it more first. If it isn't clear to the judges, it isn't a hit.
Harsh but works out even in the end. If that definition helps over all I may well put it in.

#2 it's unclear if the opponent must willingly take a step to nullify his chance to strike back, does pushing an opponent count as grappling? If not, and the opponent is forced to take two steps back does he negate his counter window? Already I'm enjoying this as one of the most observant replies I've ever had:)

More a case of he should step and strike back as a matter of course(my opinion is any amount of techniques within one step as the striker is supposed to have controlled as stated before) couple of reasons 1 the competitors don't call the hits the judges do, so if a does a flicky tap, party b should still step and fight.(if he strikes to the wrong location and a hit is called against him, tough)
2 this forces A to display something other than simple all out attack.
On pushing back
We have been discussing this is light of traps and pins and controlling binds with the rapier/longsword. Do we give the pinned party 2(rearwards tending to be shorter or weaker) steps back to disengage and strike, this taking the place of the one forward?

#3 To "break" these rules I would personally simply cut as fast as I can repeatedly, and because my cut is very fast I stand a good chance of landing a blow and tying up some sort of reply in a bind by pure dumb luck rather than deliberate intent.
.

We've tried that, you should end up losing you points if you come against someone with better skills, if you do it well though there is nothing wrong with hitting twice in the same place and controlling the opponent. Two zwerch to the same side works lovely sometimes, so does a zucken to the same side(zorn twitch zorn) nowt wrong with that, if you display greater skill.

Ex: I cut to the head, since by the rules you have to reply to the head/torso, I just cut again as fast as possible in the same vicinity and chances are good our blades will meet, if they don't, no loss, I cut again to the head... the unfortunate consequence may be that kendoka find the competition very appealing because they tap, push and cut repeatedly to the head which often randomly enter a bind (firsthand experience tells me so).

Take in mind that you still have to prevent him cutting to the torso as you do this, a high low cut being very easy and natural, so you may brain him and lose your points, however, if as in my example above you strike twice while covering, you did your job and displayed a skill...I still get my step:)

Excellent thought provoking reply thankyou.