Sport vs History

[fox_sejant]

While watching the Duke Brannos training video Quicktongue posted a few days ago I recognized that some of the things he does are specific to the conventions of SCA fighting. As he is a duke it is obvious that his technique is quite effective. It did however get me to thinking about history

Comments

Sport Or history

[rhisiart]

I personally think, to heck w. history. Mostly because our rules are to keep us safe. We can't hit below the knee,we don't attack from behind and we limit physical contact. Historical fighting is designed for fighting, defending your life, not winning in a contest and having a beer we your opponent after. And as you said our tools are different as well.

I'm not saying there isn't merit in historical fighting techniques, they probably help, after all people fought w. those weapons for centuries they did perfect their forms. But we're a sport, a martial art, with our own set of rules and requirements.

I've never looked at historical styles, I just fight in the SCA. But that's my choice. This I look at simply as the martial art I choose to partake in and I want to excel in it.

[theagentx]

You should focus on what makes it fun for you. If that's fighting in as period a manner as possible then do so. If it's fighting in a competitive manner, using what works in the context of SCA fighting, then do that.

I view what we do as a sport more then an attempt to be historically accurate. An historically influenced sport to be sure, but still a sport. Of course, we don't really know what modifications to technique developed during the time of the tournaments when the goal wasn't to kill an opponent, do we? I mean, we may, but I don't, having never really got into the fighting manuals. They're a little late for me... :)